Evidence of meeting #35 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 rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
No, I'm not done, Mr. Firth. I'll just keep going here.
In the corruption index, Canada scores eighth out of 149, which means that we're pretty good at following the rule of law in our own country. If we take a look at Mexico, they're 69th out of 149, and Romania is 53rd.
I'm guessing that you're probably not arguing that we should be following them on that particular scale but should be following them on an environmental scale. Is that right?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
No. In fact the point I'm trying to make is that I would expect, given our economic standing in the world, that we would be much higher in that ranking. That's the simple point I'm proposing there.
Look at the countries who are at the top of that table. That's the company that we should be keeping.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Well, it is the company we're keeping when it comes to such things as following the rule of law or when it comes to things such as corruption, or things such as GDP. I mean, we're ahead of Sweden and we're basically tied with Switzerland. We're basically second to none when it comes to following the rule of law. We already have extensive and expansive legislation in this country dealing with environmental factors. So I don't understand what the point might be.
But I'm going to ask you a question, and it pertains to the Shipping Federation of Canada, who testified before this committee. They're talking about the bill. I'll spare you the preliminaries, but they say:
In view of the foregoing, we are concerned that Bill C-469 would enable anyone to challenge any regulatory standard at any time, thereby trumping the existing regulatory process and creating regulatory unpredictability. We therefore submit that a new subsection should be added to section 16, in order to provide that the proposed judicial review remedy does not apply to a regulatory standard.
Now, Ms. Duncan piped up, in an attempted point of order, to try to basically say—perhaps she hasn't read her own bill—that it doesn't apply to permits. Yet clause 19—
NDP
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I'm not; I'm just wondering. It would seem to me that the author of the bill would know what the wording is.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Paragraph 19(2)(a) says “suspend or cancel a permit or authorization issued to the defendant or the defendant’s right to obtain or hold a permit or authorization” in any undertaking that might be challenged pursuant to the balance of tests in section 16 of this bill, thereby putting potential projects that have already been permitted—already existing projects—in a perilous situation, should this law come to pass. Also, it would put any proposed permits or projects that might be before any regulatory body in a perilous position as well.
Do you really believe that the membership, the 600,000 workers you represent, if they knew the gravity of the potential of this legislation, would actually support this bill?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I think this is the third time I'm being asked the same sort of question, and I've already given a response to it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
We have about four minutes left. Mr. Ouellet, you can use part of that time, and then we'll suspend.
I'm going to give you about three minutes, Mr. Ouellet.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you for appearing as a witness today. Your take on the bill is very interesting. Other individuals have certainly made it clear to you that some witnesses that we had at the last session asked questions about the bill that were much more difficult than yours.
Are your 600,000 members from all the provinces? If there are some in Quebec, what name do they go by? What do they do?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
We have members in all provinces—none of the territories, but all provinces—including Quebec: hydro workers, health care workers, municipal workers throughout the province of Quebec. I'm not exactly sure how many members we have in Quebec.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
It isn't necessary. I do not want to know that. I would like to know if you have consulted…
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, I couldn't quite hear. Did the witness say that he represents people in Hydro-Québec?
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Yes. Listen well, and you will hear.
It's not a point of order. He's not listening.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I think there's a problem with translation.
Mr. Ouellet, you have the floor.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Have you consulted your members in Quebec about this bill? Have the people who work in your organization given you their opinion about this?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
It's the same answer I gave to the last question: that the workers who were consulted were members of CUPE's national environment committee, which includes two members from Quebec. So yes, they were consulted.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Okay. As I don't see this element in your summary of discussions, I would like to know whether provincial jurisdiction was brought up. Were people working for your union aware that jurisdiction issues could arise between a provincial ministry of the environment and the federal government regarding this bill?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
In terms of the consultation, they were aware that this bill refers only to federal jurisdiction.
