This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.
This bill was previously introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session.
Linda Duncan NDP
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Oct. 29, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
moved that Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Canadian Environmental Bill of RightsPrivate Members' Business
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, sponsored by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that it would require new spending not authorized by Parliament. The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 834:
—a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.
Bill C-469 would establish a Canadian environmental bill of rights. The bill raises problems with respect to new spending in two areas. First, part 2 would authorize environmental protection action against the government by enabling Canadians to seek recourse in the Federal Court to protect the environment in relation to any action or inaction by the government, which has resulted in significant environmental harm.
As a result, clause 19 in part 2 would create potential new legal liabilities for the government by adding the power to enable the Federal Court to order the government to pay for the restoration or rehabilitation of the part of the environment, and the power to order the government to pay for the enhancement or protection of the environment generally. Clause 19 would result in a potential increase in the government's legal liabilities since payments resulting from decisions of the Federal Court would be made from the consolidated revenue fund.
Procedural authorities and precedents indicate that such a measure would require a royal recommendation. The 21st edition of Erskine May states on page 714:
Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament [requires the Queen's recommendation].
On June 12, 1973 the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that a royal recommendation was required for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. He stated:
It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.
On May 25, 2009 the Speaker of the other place ruled that Bill S-219, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (student loans), required a royal recommendation because it would increase the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. The Speaker stated:
Bill S- 219 would expand the range of conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal Recommendation--
While the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act establishes a general process for settling civil judgments, Bill C-469 would establish a new mechanism for creating civil liability judgments, thereby expanding the objects and purposes of the royal recommendation that accompanied the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms states on page 183:
—an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes...expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
The second problematic area of Bill C-469 is part 4, which would add additional functions for the Auditor General not currently authorized in the statute, which would require new government spending. Part 4 would require the Auditor General to:
—examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and the Auditor General shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
Section 5 of the Auditor General Act sets out the powers and duties of the Auditor General. It states:
The Auditor General is the auditor of the accounts of Canada...and as such shall make such examinations and inquiries as he considers necessary to enable him to report as required by this Act.
The act is clear that the Auditor General has discretion in the examinations and inquiries that she wishes to undertake. Bill C-469 would change that by requiring the Auditor General to examine all regulations and bills introduced in the House of Commons.
The role of the Auditor General is an audit function. This means that the Auditor General can examine and inquire into the performance of a program, money spent on a particular program, and examine financial statements. What is not provided for is a perspective analysis of the impact of proposals not yet implemented. Yet, this is exactly what Bill C-469 calls for, to study policy proposals before the House of Commons.
The Auditor General's website is clear on this point. On choosing topics for performance audits, it states:
The Auditor General does not audit topics that fall outside the Office’s mandate. Examples are all policy decisions, which are the prerogative of Parliament and government--
Precedents indicate that substantive mandate changes require a royal recommendation. On February 11, 2008 the Speaker ruled on Bill C-474, National Sustainable Development Act, that:
However, clause 13 of Bill C-474 would modify the mandate of this new independent commissioner to require...the development of “a national sustainability monitoring system...The clause...would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate....clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached.
In conclusion, Bill C-469 would increase spending through provisions to increase government liabilities and through provisions to expand the mandate of the Auditor General, and therefore would require a royal recommendation.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his arguments. The Speaker will certainly take these arguments into consideration.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the opportunity to reply to the point of order at a later date.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Yes, absolutely. I would invite anyone with arguments to bring them forward as soon as possible.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, almost three decades ago, I drafted an environmental bill of rights with the northern Alberta environmental law section of the Canadian Bar Association. Sadly, that bill was squashed by the southern Albert bar.
Since that date, however, more than 130 nations have enshrined the right to a clean and healthy environment in their constitutions. Others have enacted national laws. A number of provincial governments in Canada, to their credit, have enacted environmental rights. Some have enshrined these rights in a stand-alone law, such as the environmental bill of rights in Ontario. Other provincial governments have incorporated an array of rights and duties in their respective environmental laws.
Past federal governments have also incorporated some limited government duties and citizen rights to environmental protection in federal statutes, but no comprehensive law has been enacted at the federal level to accord the right to all Canadians, regardless of where they live in this vast nation, to a clean and healthy environment. Equally rare are any mandatory duties imposed upon federal ministers or officials to take action to protect the environment, or to take precautionary measures to prevent harm to health and the environment.
There have been many public calls for an environmental bill of rights to ensure that all Canadians will receive equal protection for their environment and health. I am appreciative of the many legal experts who helped me in the crafting of this bill. I am also encouraged by the letters of support I am receiving from communities across the country, from Newfoundland to Victoria, from New Brunswick to Saskatchewan, from Alberta to the Northwest Territories.
The key purposes of the bill are the following.
It imposes environmental duties on the Government of Canada and extends clear environmental rights to Canadians. It grants every resident of Canada the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It imposes the obligation on the Government of Canada, within its jurisdiction, to protect those rights.
What new duties are imposed?
First, the bill imposes a legal duty on the federal government to protect the public trust, defined as the duty to preserve and protect the collective interests of the people of Canada in the quality of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.
Various federal ministers are currently obligated to take specified actions to protect the environment or to prevent health impacts. For example, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the federal Minister of Health is obligated and mandated to take action when she receives information that toxins may harm human health. Additionally, the federal Minister of the Environment is obligated to take action within specified timelines to protect endangered species.
However, what is groundbreaking about this bill is that it extends the duty to all federal authorities, in all federal decisions impacting the environment, to assert its jurisdiction and powers to protect the environment on behalf of all Canadians.
Where the government knows or suspects that a substance may harm the environment or human health, it should be duty bound to act. Where a species is endangered and in fact listed under federal law, the government should have the duty to act.
Second, the bill compels the government to provide effective, timely and affordable access to environmental information. Clear evidence of the need to make mandatory this duty is found in the recent awarding by the Information Commissioner of an F grade to Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada.
Just this week, scientists testified before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, calling for greater transparency in decisions about recovery plans for threatened species, if only to ensure that scientific information provided is factored into decision-making.
Given timely access to information, potentially impacted communities will be better able to hold federal ministers and authorities accountable to act in their interests to prevent harm or to require action by polluters. Government officials will be obligated to reveal to Canadians the negotiation positions by the government on critical environmental treaties and bilateral agreements.
Associated with this duty is the extension of whistleblower protection for any federal employees who participate in decision-making, who apply for investigations, who provide information, who give evidence, or refuse to act in good faith.
Third, under this proposed law, the federal government must also ensure timely and effective public participation in decision-making on federal laws and policies related to the environment. This enshrines a commitment made by Canada in ratifying the Rio convention and as signatory to the North American agreement on environmental cooperation.
What new rights are accorded or embellished under Bill C-469? The bill enshrines a bundle of environmental rights. It accords the necessary rights and standing to Canadians to ensure access to environmental justice. This includes seeking court intervention where the government fails to comply with legal duties to protect the environment, or human health impacts, or to enforce federal environmental laws.
Any resident of Canada or entity such as an environmental non-government organization will have standing to bring a public trust action against the Government of Canada for failing to meet its duties as trustee of the environment. The courts are accorded broad and innovative powers in a successful action, including restoration, preventive measures, or order for production of a compliance plan, all sensible results. They may suspend or cancel permits or require posting of financial collateral.
Standing is also accorded to bring civil actions against violators of federal environmental laws where the offence has resulted, or may result, in significant environmental harm. Obviously, it adheres to the precautionary principle. This extends the right of standing beyond a more narrow class of persons who may be deemed directly impacted. Any Canadian will have the right to seek the review or enactment of any federal environmental law or policy.
Any resident of Canada will be able to seek the investigation of an offence under any federal environmental law. While this right is provided under some federal environmental laws, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this would extend that opportunity for all laws, whether related to toxins, fisheries, wildlife, climate change, or environmental assessment.
Recently, the government tabled an omnibus bill to make more consistent enforcement provisions across the law. This would do a similar action in according equal rights and obligations across all environmental statutes. Canadians are also granted the right to seek an interim order to prevent significant environmental harm. Clear criteria are specified for the court to consider in granting such an order. This is consistent with the direction the government has taken in criminal law. Clearly the laws on the environment should also follow a consistent direction. The order may issue a cleanup order, a restoration order, or fines directed to environmental protection for monitoring.
In closing, I would like to share with the House a quote which regularly inspires me in taking action to protect the environment. I have spent more than 35 years in my career as an environmental lawyer representing the interests of the public of Canada and abroad to ensure that they have equal rights and that government is obligated to take action. This is a quote by George Cheever:
The man who can really, in living union of the mind and heart, converse with God through nature, finds in the material forms around him, a source of power and happiness inexhaustible, and like the life of angels.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her more formal presentation on this important bill on the Canadian environmental bill of rights. I would like to ask her about elements of the bill that would engage the Canadian citizenry. I know, for example, that under the North American Free Trade Agreement Commission for Environmental Cooperation there is a role for citizens from the three countries that participate in NAFTA, just as there is a specific role for citizens under the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's mandate.
Could the member help us understand how the bill would get Canadian citizens more actively engaged in protecting our beautiful environment?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, the member's question is an important one. Under previous Conservative governments and under a number of Liberal governments, Canada has had a propensity for stepping up to the plate and being one of the first to sign and ratify international conventions, but the way Canadian law works is that we actually have to enshrine in our domestic laws those obligations so that they can be binding on the country. We have also had a propensity for signing on to bilateral agreements where we commit to do a variety of things, such as under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
This bill would put in law the binding duty to deliver those rights to access to information to participate in decision making across statutes, across obligations of the government dealing with protection of the environment and health.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.
Previously, the New Democratic Party brought forward Bill C-311, which was just going through the process here in the House. At committee, we heard from various experts and witnesses, some of whom said that they produced the costing associated with Bill C-311 through their various reports.
Has the member asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any other third party, or any party at all, for a cost analysis of what this proposed bill would cost the taxpayers of Canada?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is one that the Conservatives like to put to the opposition when in fact they do not do the costing for their own bills.
I would like to advise that the cost that has not been calculated is the most important one, which is, the cost to the government for not taking action to protect the environment.
The member will notice, if he goes through the bill, that it provides that citizens will intervene only when the government does not deliver on its duties. Presumably, the government has budgeted to make sure that it delivers all of its environmental obligations. If it does, there will be no additional costs incurred.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on an excellent speech and on her work on the bill. She obviously has the government concerned because it is already dealing with the royal recommendation issue.
She mentioned some other countries in the world that have legislation of this type. We are always interested in best practices here in the House. Which governments in the world have, in the member's opinion, the best legislation of this type and how does her legislation compare with that other legislation?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, that is an extremely tough question.
I could not possibly go over the 130 countries that have taken the effort to actually enshrine in their constitutions the right to a clean, healthy environment.
I can advise the member that I had the privilege of working in Bangladesh. That country, which operates under a similar system of law as Canada does, has taken that measure and actually enshrined that right. India has as well. I would be here all day if I listed all the countries. A better way to put it is that Canada is among the few nations that have not taken that step, and that is precisely why I have tabled the bill.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Madam Speaker, I was a little puzzled by the answer that my colleague gave to my question. I think her answer to my question was that presumably, if nobody did anything wrong or the government did all it was supposed to do, there would be no cost to the government. This begs the question of why the bill is needed in the first place, but I digress.
I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to the issue of environmental rights and Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.
In 1972, the delegates to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment recognized the connection between economic development and the environment. Some 15 years later, the World Commission on Environment and Development took this concept further when it defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
That definition has helped shape public policy, business strategies and individual choices for nearly a quarter of a century. It envisions a world where all decisions, including what we produce, what we buy, where we live and what we value, are informed by the need to take care of our planet. The concept of sustainable development is powerful because it recognizes the need to pay attention to and support three mutually reinforcing pillars: economic, social and environmental.
This is why our government has committed to the protection of the environment while maintaining a balance with the social and economic priorities of Canadians. Particularly in this context of economic recovery, our government wants to ensure that our economy remains one of the strongest in the industrialized world and that Canada is able to succeed in the modern economy. This is why in the last Speech from the Throne our government committed to building the jobs and industries of the future by completing the second year of Canada's economic action plan.
Bill C-469 recognizes in its preamble that Canadians understand the close linkages between a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and Canada's economic, social, cultural and intergenerational security. However, the government is concerned that the bill may not give appropriate emphasis to each of the three pillars of sustainable development. Bill C-469 sets out rights and government responsibilities related to environmental protection and it is not clear whether these are appropriately balanced with other socio-economic goals.
The bill introduces a series of substantive environmental rights. First, it would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as an element of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. It would also place an obligation on the government to protect this right. Finally, it would recognize the Government of Canada as the trustee of Canada's environment and oblige the government to preserve it in accordance with the public trust.
Bill C-469 establishes these rights in a much stronger, less balanced way than other similar environmental rights laws. Other Canadian jurisdictions that have adopted environmental rights legislation have taken an approach that allows the government to manage environmental, social and economic priorities together.
For example, the right to a healthful environment in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is limited to what is provided by the laws of Quebec. Similarly, the protection of the right to a healthful environment, referred to in the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights is limited to the means provided by the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.
In addition to the substantive environmental rights proposed in Bill C-469, the bill proposes a series of procedural environmental rights and obligations meant to improve public participation in environmental decisions and enforcement as well as access to environmental information. These include an obligation on the Government of Canada to ensure effective access to environmental information by making such information available to the public in a reasonable, timely and affordable fashion.
The bill could also oblige the government to ensure opportunities for effective, informed and timely public participation in environmental decision making, the right to request an investigation of an alleged environmental offence, whistleblower protection and the right to take action against offenders who cause environmental harm. It is important to keep in mind that the objectives of public participation in environmental decision making and access to environmental information are already provided for under existing federal legislation and policies.
For example, the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators initiative, renewed in budget 2010, provides Canadians with regular information on the state of our environment.
We have recently passed the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which requires the development of a sustainable development strategy that makes the government more accountable to Parliament for environmental decision-making.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, also provides for many of the rights promoted in Bill C-469, including access to proposed and existing policies, guidelines and regulations through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, environmental registry, provisions for public participation in various stages of decision-making under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, whistleblower protection and the right to request that the Minister of the Environment conduct an investigation of an alleged offence and potentially to proceed with an environmental protection action against an alleged offender.
The procedural rights provided under existing federal law contribute to the goals of public participation and access to information while recognizing responsible management of government and court resources.
While placing meaningful obligations on government and providing opportunities for recourse to the courts, the existing rights are tailored to ensure that procedural rights do not overwhelm government capacity or judicial resources. In turn, this ensures the three pillars of sustainable development are taken into account.
The procedural rights under existing federal laws are similar to the approach in other Canadian jurisdictions. For example, similar obligations and rights related to access to information and public participation are provided under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.
Bill C-469, on the other hand, lacks similar limitations and could therefore have significant impacts on government resources.
Other procedural rights are also included in Bill C-469. For example, the bill would authorize any resident of Canada or entity that believes that an act, regulation, other statutory instrument or policy should be amended, repealed or made in order to protect the environment, to apply to the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development for a review by the appropriate minister. This raises concerns over the extent and scope of the review to be undertaken, as well as the roles and accountabilities of Parliament, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the governor in council and ministers.
Finally, Bill C-469 would require that government bills introduced in the House of Commons and all new regulations be examined by the Auditor General to identify inconsistencies with the proposed environmental bill of rights. This would fundamentally change the role of the Auditor General by imposing on her a duty to provide legal opinions to Parliament. In contrast, under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights the obligation on the government to respond to such a request applies only to prescribed ministers.
In closing, while the government believes in the protection of the environment and the recognition of environmental rights, it is important to stress that the principle of sustainable development includes a balancing of environmental, economic and social goals.
It is also important to stress the existing environmental procedural rights under federal laws. Transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making, access to environmental information, and environmental accountability are already entrenched in our environmental laws in a manner that promotes financial responsibility and access to justice.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to be here this evening to participate in this very important debate about this very important bill.
I would like to commend the member of the NDP caucus for bringing the bill forward. I would also like to congratulate Ecojustice, one of Canada's more prominent legal non-governmental organizations with a focus on ecological issues, which has been essential in helping to draft this early model legislation for a Canadian environmental bill of rights for two of its own clients.
It is interesting to follow on the heels of the member for Wetaskiwin because I am little surprised. After all, he is a member of the party of Mr. Diefenbaker who in 1960 brought in a bill of rights.
I was heartened, however, to hear him refer to a number of initiatives, from the sustainable development indicators initiative, which is now under way, to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, all of which are either legislation or offices created under the watch of a succession of Liberal governments.
I think this legislation is timely and here is why. Canada has fallen behind other nations in terms of environmental policy and, more importantly, in terms of environmental performance.
We are now ranked 15th of 17 nations by our own Conference Board of Canada. We are 28th out of 30 OECD nations ranked by Simon Fraser University researchers. We have dropped from 8th place to 46th place on the Yale-Columbia Environmental Performance Index between 2005 and 2010, tellingly, since the arrival of the Conservatives in government.
Here is what we know about jurisdictions. There are now dozens that have a bill of rights or some kind of constitutional right enshrining the right to a healthy environment. We heard from our colleague from the NDP that no fewer than 130 countries around the world today already recognize the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions, something that was debated feverishly when our Constitution was being repatriated and the Charter of Rights was being brought forward by Prime Minister Trudeau and his administration.
It is also timely because important new research indicates that in countries where there are not constitutional provisions that force them to require environmental protection, including the right to live in a healthy environment, the absence of those provisions is associated with inferior environmental performance.
I am again troubled by references raised by the Conservatives asking for costing of the bill, for example, asking whether the bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This would be the same Parliamentary Budget Officer whose budget was cut by the Conservative government and is hardly in a position to conduct the work should it be referred to him anyway.
It is richer still because the government, having no climate change plan, for example, or any iteration of what it claims to be a plan, has sent nothing to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for costing of its own measures.
Therefore it is a continuing ruse put forward by the Conservatives to try to hold up the accountability, the value-for-money proposition, instead of dealing with the important merits of a Canadian environmental bill of rights, in this case.
A couple of things have been going on. Among some of the most significant reforms worldwide have been, as I was saying earlier, the rewriting of national constitutions in 140 countries, 132 of which now provide for a government duty to protect the environment. That is not 2, not 32, but 132. There is a substantive individual right to live in a healthy environment in 86 countries, an individual duty to protect the environment in 78 countries and new procedural environmental rights such as access to information in yet another 28 countries.
I will quote Dr. David Boyd from Simon Fraser University, one of Canada's leading authorities in research in this area. He said that the presence of these constitutional provisions demonstrates a vital commitment to environmental protection, given that constitutions are the supreme law of nations and represent citizens' most cherished, deeply held values.
Another 115 countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East have signed legally binding regional treaties that explicitly recognize the right to a healthy environment. It turns out that Canada is now 1 of fewer than 50 nations on this planet whose constitutions remain silent regarding this fundamental matter.
We look at the evidence, the evidence that we hope Parliament will be focusing on in examining the merits of this bill, not ideology here, not false claims of value for money or costing, but the evidence, the environmental legislation and jurisprudence and the relative performance of countries that do have constitutional environmental provisions.
We know that the evidence tells us that in these countries we have, one, stronger environmental laws and policies. Surely no one in Canada today would be opposed to stronger environmental laws and policies.
Two, we see an improved implementation and enforcement of existing laws. The government itself brought in some progressive and positive changes to environmental enforcement in this country. I cannot imagine it would be opposed to seeing progress there.
Three, we see increased public participation in environmental decision-making, something we are already doing with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation through NAFTA in Montreal. It is also something we are doing with our Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development trying to enhance the role of our citizenry in making sure, as a legacy question, as a quality-of-life question, as a natural wealth question, that we are actually protecting the natural wonders that surround us.
Four, we know that in those jurisdictions where this exists, there is a more prominent role for the courts in environmental governance. This is a far cry from the federal Conservative Party and the government here, constantly running to the Federal Court to challenge calls for the implementation of their own legislation and binding laws.
Finally, we know that in those countries that have constitutional environmental provisions, there is increased accountability. Everybody in this House wants to see progress when it comes to accountability on so many different fronts.
Most importantly we know that in those jurisdictions, and there are hundreds as I mentioned, constitutional provisions are making a substantial contribution to improving people's lives and their well-being, through clean drinking water, cleaner air, better sanitation, better waste management practices, recycling and healthier eco-systems.
There is a reason why this country is reporting on sustainable development indicators. It is previous prime minister Paul Martin who, as minister of finance, asked me in my capacity as president of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy a decade ago to produce these so we could tell Canadians, truly, what the state of our wealth was, what the state of our health was.
It is not just a question of GDP; it is a question of functioning ecosystems, whose worth we have not yet been able to figure out in terms of monetizing it, but we know these systems are worth a lot more than zero.
This bill is timely because Canada is slipping, because we are falling, as I said earlier, from 8th place to 46th place on the Yale-Columbia Environmental Performance Index. Imagine. The Yale-Columbia group is hardly an ideological group, hardly a group with an axe to grind in Canada. I am very concerned when I see this kind of empirical data showing that we are falling behind.
It is timely. I am looking forward to seeing this matter, hopefully, end up in the environment and sustainable development committee. I commend my colleague from Edmonton once again for bringing this bill forward.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate, which is very important—fundamental even. I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for having introduced Bill C-469.
First of all, we support the underlying principle of the bill. We need to thank and congratulate a number of civil society groups, such as Ecojustice, which the Bloc Québécois leader and I met with over a year ago. The group helped us understand how important it is to have a Canadian environmental bill of rights.
We wholeheartedly support the five principles stated in this bill because we need to make fundamental changes to what I would call governance. We need to move toward a new form of environmental governance. Bill C-469 clearly moves us toward that goal because it incorporates the precautionary principle. This principle was developed in 1972 as part of the Stockholm convention, and it took root in 1992 at the Rio summit. This principle is fundamental. Lacking scientific certainty in various fields of human activity, we must act according to the precautionary principle.
This issue has been incorporated into some legislation. We would like to see it included in even more laws. Several environmental laws include the precautionary principle in their preamble, but we would like to see it in the laws themselves. That would force departments to make decisions about issues such as genetically modified organisms, for example. The precautionary principle is therefore fundamental.
The polluter pays principle triggers an important debate about what I call a green tax system. We have to ensure that every dollar spent is invested in renewable economies. That is not what Canada has done in the past. Since 1970, over $60 billion has been spent on tax breaks for the oil industry, while renewable energy has received just a few hundred million. We need changes to taxation in Canada; we need a green tax system.
If we undertake this change, we would respect the second principle in this bill, which is the polluter pays principle, and encourage true sustainable development. We have some tools at our disposition. For one, we have the strategic environmental assessment, which was passed in the early 1990s and which is a directive in the Prime Minister's Office. In theory, it forces each department to evaluate its plans, policies and programs to ensure that more than just economic issues are taken into consideration. Social and environmental aspects must be considered as well.
The third main principle in the bill is intergenerational equity. How can we guarantee that the resources we use today will also be available for future generations? We cannot make decisions based on a short-term outlook. We have to look at each decision and ensure that it will allow us to ensure a future, and better intergenerational equity as well as environmental justice.
We agree with part 1 of the bill, which says that every citizen has a right to a healthy environment. That is obvious. It is the right to life. It is the right to live in an environment where the air and water are of the highest quality so as to ensure human survival.
This is a fundamental right in part 1 of the bill.
Second, we agree with the principle in part 2 of the bill, which would put in place various mechanisms allowing for legal and civil action against the federal government and entities under its exclusive jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that. We support this bill because we believe that it and the bills of rights would apply to areas under federal jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons we are supporting this bill.
The third principle is the protection of employees. Mechanisms to protect employees are clearly set out in part 3 of this bill, and they are important. Why? Because scientists who become aware of a situation have to be able to tell the public about it when it poses a threat to humankind or the environment. Europe and especially France have what are known as “whistleblowers”. These people, who are sometimes ordinary citizens but more often scientists who work in government and become aware of something that could have a negative impact on the environment and humankind, decide to speak out publicly. We have to ensure that these scientists and ordinary citizens are not fired the next day, because in becoming aware of a situation they would run afoul of a government approach or ideological policy. So scientists are protected. I would hope that part 3 also protects these whistleblowers so that the public can find out about the real state of our environment.
Part 4 of the bill ensures greater independence by subjecting the government's messages and policies to analysis by independent parties. The Auditor General has a greater role to play. We have seen this in three bills: first, Bill C-288 on the application of the Kyoto protocol; second, Bill C-311 which aimed at following through on the Kyoto protocol; and finally, the sustainable development strategy that was adopted and that gives the Auditor General a clear mandate to independently analyze and verify the government's policies.
This is important because this independence is not always a given. We saw this with the instructions given to scientists. As we saw, scientists were not necessarily allowed to speak up. So this is about allowing independence. In a new environmental governance, independence is important. The media, businesses and scientists must all be independent in order to really engage in this new approach towards a real vision of sustainable development and to give scientists a chance.
I am thinking of GMOs in particular. Over the past several years, successive governments have refused to ask the Royal Society of Canada, an association of Canada's best and most eminent scientists, to assess the impact of GMOs on health and the environment. A government that valued independent thought and allowed scientists to do their work would have referred the GMO issue to the Royal Society of Canada for a truly independent analysis.
I will close with a brief quote from Albert Jacquard's latest book, entitled Le compte à rebours a-t-il commencé?, or “Has the countdown begun?”
For ages, humans have lived as though their time would never run out, as though progress would never cease to make the world a better place for us, as though humans would always grow richer, more beautiful and more capable, as though we could create an infinite number of nuclear bombs without ever having to use them, as though we had the right to plunder the planet's riches at will without ever making a dent in an endless supply. Those days are past. We now know that our time is running out and that if we continue to work against ourselves, we may well create a planet on which none of us want to live.