Bill C-481 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

This enactment amends the Federal Sustainable Development Act to provide for an examination of bills and proposed regulations to ensure that their provisions are not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of that Act.

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to pay tribute to Constable David Dennie, who died in a tragic motor vehicle accident yesterday in Blind River while off duty.

Constable Dennie, from the Blind River detachment, served for 12 years with the OPP in Blind River and previous to this was with the Elliot Lake Police Force.

I am certain all members join me in sending our deepest sympathy to his wife Karine Sylvestre, his two young sons, his extended family, his colleagues, and the communities of Blind River and Elliot Lake as they mourn his loss. I thank the House for allowing me to make that brief statement.

I will now address Bill C-481 which stands in the name of my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Last summer's flood of the Bow River in southern Alberta was emblematic of the kinds of challenges that we are now facing more often. In addition to urban flooding, we are facing problems with extreme weather events with increasing frequency, and the costs are piling up. We have more intense heat waves and increased drought, especially in western Canada, and forest fires are increasing in number and severity too. Canada is truly feeling the effects of climate change, and the increase in our average annual temperature of 1.3° Celsius over the last 60 years is greater than what is being felt in many parts of the world.

We also know much more about the negative elements of climate change, and that is the price we are paying for the way we have developed modern industrial and post-industrial countries. It is the product of “develop now, pay later” practices.

To a degree that can be an excuse for our actions in the past, when we were not so aware of the effects of human activity on the environment, ecosystem, and weather patterns, but now, with the benefit of scientific observation and analysis, we know better. In fact, now we can view past developments and pinpoint the practices that were not sustainable. With that knowledge, we can also work toward developing our economy in a way that is sustainable and does not merely continue to pass on the negative costs to future generations.

We know that is what most Canadians desire. No one wants to leave a debt behind for their children and grandchildren, but in many ways that is what we are still doing. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, like most of us who have been elected, have had the privilege of visiting children in elementary schools. I am also certain that very few of us will have heard concerns from these young people about many of the things that we busy ourselves with in Parliament, save for a few select issues.

The leading concern of school-age children from the schools that I visit is indeed the environment, and the concerns of these young Canadians are actually very well founded. True, they learn about the environment and ecosystems in junior grades, and there is quite a bit of awareness messaging aimed at individuals, but they hear about it from the people in their lives as well. We also have to recognize the effect of Earth Day; a lot of schools have activities around Earth Day. It could be as simple as passing by an area that has been bulldozed for development and hearing a parent tell how they caught tadpoles there when they were young, or how a creek that is obviously polluted used to be good for fishing 30 years ago.

We see a lot of that. Manitoulin Streams is a prime example of rehabilitating the streams in that area.

The point is that our young people have concerns about the environment that are well founded, and they have expectations of us to act in the best way possible to ensure that degradation stops and their futures are not compromised.

We might consider those high expectations, but it is reasonable to assume that a country as privileged as Canada would expect its legislators to have developed safeguards to ensure that future development is more sustainable and that government initiatives and policies would be guided by those safeguards. It is a reasonable assumption, and the good news is that it is correct: we have the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was passed unanimously by Parliament during the current government's first term,

However, there is bad news as well, which is that what we have in place is not performing in the way it was intended to. It is actually toothless.

Fortunately, we are debating a private member's bill that has the potential to increase the strength of the Federal Sustainable Development Act so that it would become a more useful tool, instead of its current status, which is somewhere between a notion and half-hearted practice.

In fact, all Bill C-481 would do is elevate a commitment from the status of an intention to that of a guiding principle. Much of what is needed is already in place. We already have the legislation that would be supercharged by this bill. There is already a process in place that sees the Minister of Justice reviewing any legislation for compatibility with the Charter of Rights.

What is missing is the political will to include the cost of our environment and ecosystems in our economic considerations. It is the product of looking at our economy as limited to monetary elements, which is wishful thinking at best and seems to be a mindset that is entrenched on the government benches.

Consider the response of the parliamentary secretary to this bill. What is his objection? It is that it would cost too much and would amount to red tape. That is a simplified argument that hides the fact that the people who would pay the most are the ones who are reaping huge and unmitigated profits in the oil and gas sector. That is the primary and almost singular concern of the Conservative government. It is clear from the way the government has entirely dismantled our environmental regulatory system, to that sector's advantage; the way it has muzzled the scientists who might warn of us of any dangers that would flow from unabated development; the way it views environmentalists as radicals; and the way it subsidizes big oil and gas while dismissing the concerns of the majority of Canadians.

Bill C-481 is, as has been stated, a very simple and elegant piece of legislation. It would take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Justice already reviews each piece of legislation to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Charter of Rights. It would merely add the lens of sustainable development to that review. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save money in the long term. However, saving money over generations is not politically attractive, especially for a government and political party that engages in full-time campaigning. For the Conservatives, long-term initiatives and future generations have little to no value.

We know that the Conservatives are against the companies that would benefit from resource extraction paying for the costs of cleanup and restoration. To do so would apparently grind our economy to a halt. Where is the vision for the day when the oil and gas reserves are depleted? What do they plan for the inevitable moment when the profits stop flowing and all we are left with is a mess to clean up? Do they expect to abandon as dead the regions that have been exploited?

Those are the choices the Conservatives are happy to leave to our children and their children. That is the cost of maximizing profits now without considering the environment as a huge part of our economy. I am reminded of the Cree prophecy that is absolutely appropriate for this discussion:

Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten

As parliamentarians, we are faced with a choice: do what is convenient, or challenge ourselves to roll up our sleeves and begin to plan for a future that is not compromised by inaction. Will we tell the corporate executives and financial institutions that we can no longer pursue temporary prosperity that is mortgaged on the backs of future generations, or will we take the easy route and maintain the status quo?

I have grandchildren, two beautiful boys, Kade and Kian, who deserve a bright future, just like every child in Canada and all future generations. If I were to accept that we cannot afford to pursue true sustainable development, I would be turning my back on them, and I cannot do that.

I have never been afraid of a little hard work or of paying my fair share. Most people I know feel and act much the same, which is why it is only reasonable to ask the same of our government. Yet the Conservative government and the Liberal government that preceded it have never told corporate Canada that it must also do the hard work.

I will not question the motives of business. It has one job, and that is to make money. It is the government's responsibility to say what will be allowed in that pursuit. For those who would object to that statement, I ask them to consider our laws that prohibit anyone from going into business to sell narcotics. The same sensibilities that allow us to place the greater good of the public ahead of any entrepreneurial efforts on that front can also, and I would argue must also, be used to frame what the acceptable methods of resource use will be.

While the government may like to argue that this is already the case, that we already have sustainable development legislation and an environmental regulatory framework, it cannot deny that it has moved Canada backwards on that front.

Our regulations are weakened. Reviews are limited by timelines that benefit development and limit the capacity for thorough study. The Federal Sustainable Development Act cannot be a notion only. The intention of the act must be matched with action and have the tools we need to make that happen for our future generations.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the contemporary nature of the issue before us, that is, the compliance of statutory instruments with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I think it is essential to highlight the fact that the concept of sustainable development is sometimes ambiguous and flexible.

I will first talk about how proponents of the extractive industry have misappropriated the concept of sustainable development. A decade ago, this concept emerged and became popular in universities and law schools. I remember studying it 11 or 12 years ago. It was promising, even then. I remember doing an assignment on Syncrude. Corporate social responsibility was also part of this concept, and there were many implications.

Since I come from a region where resources are being extracted all over the place, I can say that this concept has been misappropriated as a validation tool. Often, industry players will say that they work in sustainable development, just to give a degree of integrity to their actions or at least to add the appearance of respectability to their operations.

For the record, and to support my analysis, I would like to point out that, under this bill, sustainable development is a principle according to which a policy meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations. It is based on three pillars: the environment, society, and, to a lesser degree, the economy.

I did tamper with that a little. The economy was second on the list, but I decided to put it last and add “to a lesser degree”. The factors, then, are the environment, society—because without humans, there is no economy; there is nothing at all—and, to a lesser degree, the economy.

The stated objective of the legislation before us would make sustainable development central to all federal public policies in order to make Canada greener and more prosperous. However, it is essential that we avoid any undue appearance of integrity imparted by extractive industry players' habitual use of the concept.

I said “habitual” because it has become a reflex. People who propose resource extraction initiatives will always try to stick a “sustainable development” label on their proposal. It is practically the norm; we see it all the time.

As for certification bodies—I am thinking back to my own schooling—about 10 years ago, there was the ISO 14001 standard, which had to do with corporate social responsibility, and it always looked really good. I think that ISO standards are still used for certification. A company would display the banner and it looked good. However, there were enforcement measures and checks to make sure that the company displaying the banner met the standards set by the ISO certification body.

We are trying to do something similar in this case with sustainable development. However, as far as I know, there is no body that ensures that a given company or industry is applying the principles of sustainable development to the letter. This is a flexible concept, and it is too often seen as a type of certification. It is sometimes used as a trademark, for example, in the economic action plan.

There are people using the concept of sustainable development as a trademark and a type of certification. That is absolutely disgusting, since the public, environmental groups, as well as environmental and social stakeholders are increasingly wary and skeptical about the use of this concept, which was once noble but has lost its sheen over the years. This concept has become devoid of meaning and has lost a lot of its flexibility and prestige.

For the purposes of this bill, it is important that the Government of Canada support the principle whereby sustainable development is based on the need to make decisions while taking all environmental, social and, where appropriate, economic factors into account. Once again, I deliberately put the economic aspect last, but I am a little biased. I think Canadians, and my colleagues here, can detect that I am somewhat biased, because the economic aspect predominates all too often in our speeches and in the public policies that are brought forward. The economic aspect often takes precedence over other considerations, which will, in the end, lead to our demise as a nation and as a species. I wanted to point that out. We will not delve too deeply into philosophy this afternoon, but we can see that the economy without human beings and without some return and proper redistribution will lead us to our own demise.

The current Federal Sustainable Development Act is not really effective because of the government's lack of political will. There is currently a law that applies to federally regulated situations. However, given the fact that the economy and development outweigh other social and environmental considerations, we have seen very little interest in that. I even wonder why we still have an office and a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I submit that to you. However, this is indicative of the rather pronounced tendency of this government to promote economic growth ahead of other considerations that are nevertheless essential.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a position created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act, notes that that the efforts to integrate the sustainable development strategy are incomplete. Our own Commissioner, here in Canada, has informed us that the application of these measures and of the specific principles of sustainable development is not enough. Bill C-481 would address that deficiency. That is why I felt it was imperative that I rise today, especially in view of the reality of my own riding, Manicouagan, where there is extensive natural resource extraction every day.

Bill C-481 would make it possible to strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act by ensuring that the House of Commons is advised of whether a bill does or does not comply with the federal sustainable development strategy implemented under the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I really like the idea of “the House of Commons is advised”, because until recently, there have been very few notifications to the House of Commons and the general public on environmental issues—anything to do with navigable waters, for example—and any measures and initiatives that have been amended or implemented. I think the same is true today, since environmental assessments have simply been ignored. As a result, no one ends up being notified. That is really reprehensible, given the major impact this can have.

I submit this humbly and I hope you all have a good weekend.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Sustainable development is a key principle whereby a policy meets current needs without compromising those of future generations. It is based on three pillars: the environment, the economy and social issues.

To me, sustainable development is the key to having viable long-term policies. Unfortunately, far too often we have seen the government make ideological decisions that do not take long-term effects into account. These decisions create more problems than they solve. That is why it is necessary to put in safeguards to ensure that the development guidelines are respected by all governments.

The bill introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi targets this need perfectly and broadens an existing verification process to include sustainable development. Indeed, the Minister of Justice already has the responsibility for ensuring that bills are compatible with existing legislation.

What we are proposing is to simply add the Federal Sustainable Development Act to those verifications. It is true that federal legislation on sustainable development already exists. Unfortunately, it serves more as a suggestion or a smokescreen, as the Conservatives gleefully work around it.

When a Conservative government tables a budget over 400 pages long that has neither a single tangible environmental protection measure, nor even a mention of climate change, which is supposedly a priority for Canadians, we should not be surprised when it fails to respect the principles of sustainable development.

The basic principles of this act are the foundation of good sustainable policies. I will now read these basic principles.

The Government of Canada accepts the basic principle that sustainable development is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all decisions by government.

However, the Conservative government does not seem to accept this principle of sustainable development at all. As the opposition leader has so rightly said on many occasions, “The Conservatives...are going to pass on to future generations the worst economic, social and ecological debt in our country's history”.

There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne about sustainable development. There was nothing in this week's budget about sustainable development. The budget did not even mention climate change.

For years, the NDP has been telling the Conservatives that its headlong rush to develop Canada's resources without legislation to provide adequate protection of lands and waterways will have a major economic cost in the long term.

Acting in this way is just as irresponsible as buying a house and not insuring it. The Conservatives continue to eliminate environmental protections without even thinking of the consequences, and Canadian and Quebec families will have to bear the economic costs of these decisions and live with the consequences to their health if a problem arises.

The Conservatives insist on developing resources first and reacting to the consequences afterwards. That is very irresponsible. The Conservatives are pushing Canada beyond the point of no return.

The purpose of Bill C-481 is to remind the government that Canadians want sustainable development to be part of their MPs' decision-making process.

Take, for example, the RCM of Argenteuil, in my riding, which is working hard at sustainable development and supports my colleague's bill. The RCM's warden, André Jetté, wrote to me and said:

We studied the bill and we are in complete agreement with its content. Quebec has a similar strategy, which is set out in the Sustainable Development Act.

As for the RCM of Argenteuil, it should be noted that the 2013-17 strategic plan adopted in 2012 was based on the principles of sustainable development (see attached). One of the governance strategies is to “make decisions in a context of sustainable development”. To that end, the action plan provides for “developing a sustainable development policy for the RCM and the LDC and, by extension, the nine local municipalities”.

I am proud to represent the RCM of Argenteuil, and I am very proud of its sustainable development measures.

Now is the time for the Government of Canada to honour its commitments and laws and show some real leadership when it comes to responsible management for future generations.

Bill C-481 is part of the NDP's ongoing commitment to environmental issues. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am proud to play a role in these efforts. The entire NDP team has to fight to ensure that this important issue gets the recognition it deserves, as the Conservatives unfortunately keep trying to sweep it under the rug.

The committee has started a study on water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. This is an important issue that must be examined in connection with major environmental issues.

Yesterday, my colleague, the member for Drummond, moved a motion to include climate change, water levels, temperature and ecology in this study.

Unfortunately, the committee will not expand the study. The NDP will continue to pressure the Conservatives on this committee to focus on the issues of sustainable development and climate change.

I am also working hard on environmental protection, particularly with Motion No. 400, entitled “Protecting Waterways and Public Health”.

This motion asked the government to study the possibility of providing financial support to the owners of homes not connected to an adequate waste water treatment system and to bring up to standard their septic systems, in order to protect waterways, the water table and public health.

Individuals, municipalities, organizations, such as the FCM, and members of Parliament from coast to coast acknowledged the importance of such a motion and supported it. They realized that in the long term we can reduce water contamination and cleanup costs.

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated by the Conservatives in March 2013. Their inaction has a devastating impact on our lakes, rivers and the vitality of our communities that are dealing with this issue. Nonetheless, I continue to work to ensure that the government addresses this matter, which is very important for our regions.

Worse still, the Conservatives are not just failing to act to protect the environment. They are also tearing apart the protections that are already in place. Like all the NDP members, I continue to fight against the Conservatives' omnibus bills that are sabotaging the environmental protections of practically all bodies of water in Canada.

For example, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act will leave 1,000 lakes and rivers in my riding unprotected. This is just the tip of the iceberg in the daily fight against the Conservatives' backward concept of the environment as a pool of resources to be developed, not the ecosystems we are a part of.

I believe that we and our Parliament have a role to play in helping to create sustainable prosperity. This bill would make sustainable development central to all federal public policies, thereby making Canada greener and more prosperous.

This is just one of the meaningful and innovative proposals for sustainable development that the NDP will continue to support as a basic principle.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who spoke to my bill, and I thank in advance all those who will vote for it.

Bill C-481 is certainly a modest bill, but it represents an important step in putting sustainable development at the heart of the debates in the House of Commons.

Years ago I realized there was an urgent need for action on the environment. A growing number of Canadians are realizing it as well. The need to develop sustainable development policies has become a political imperative. Even our colleagues opposite are beginning to admit that we must take action.

In that regard, allow me to quote the Conservative member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who, on January 6, said the following on CBC Radio:

We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change. With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener—Waterloo and Toronto.

Those are words of wisdom that point to the urgent need to take action.

In Quebec alone, the compensation paid by insurance companies as a result of storms and flooding has increased by 25% since 2001. Inaction is getting expensive, but despite the evidence, there are no measures in the most recent budget to address climate change.

However, the Conservatives unanimously voted to bring in federal sustainable development legislation that would ensure that all departments work together to make Canada a leader in this area.

My Bill C-481 would amend this law, which was passed unanimously by the Conservative members who are still sitting here today and who will soon vote on my bill. Bill C-481 seeks to ensure that all future acts and regulations comply with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. However, the Conservative members told me that there are already regulations in place that do the same thing as Bill C-481.

When I asked the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development about it, he replied that nothing similar to this bill already exists. There is no clear requirement that any proposed legislation must undergo a strategic environmental assessment. As for regulatory impact analysis, it applies only to regulations, not bills.

Many others ask me whether the Minister of Justice has the authority to verify whether a bill is consistent with the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The Department of Justice is already obliged to review all the bills and regulations that are submitted. Bill C-481 simply links this process with what has already been created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

As usual, the departments will provide the Minister of Justice the information he needs for making a decision. If he is missing information, he just has to pick up the phone and consult the great experts that our government has hired in the past, such as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

In closing, my bill seeks to remind us that Canadians want sustainable development to be included in the decision-making of their elected representatives. Including sustainable development at the heart of all federal policies is the best way to make Canada more green and more prosperous. This is urgent and I will say it again. We only have one Earth and we must protect it. Pollution knows no boundaries.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 26, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Before we adjourn the House, we all recognize that this special day arrives each February, when we have the occasion to express our love and affection to those in our lives to whom we owe so much, and to those who have touched our hearts in such a meaningful way. On behalf of all the members of the speakership, I hope that all hon. members and our wonderful team that supports us so well here on Parliament Hill have the occasion to express their St. Valentine's Day wishes later this day, if they have not done so already.

I wish all hon. members a very safe and productive week as the House of Commons is in recess.

It being 1:45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 24, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:46 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-481 under private members' business.