Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Scott Vaughan]

As you've said, sir, the new Federal Sustainable Development Act has been passed by Parliament. The strategy was released on October 8. That is the government's lens on four critical goals related primarily to environmental protection.

In our commentary to the minister we noted it seemed that the draft strategy provided a listing of existing environmental programs, and it was unclear to us how the three pillars of sustainable development were actually going to be integrated. We weren't saying they were not, but it was unclear to us what those linkages were among the three pillars. We're looking forward to seeing some clarification on that as the implementation moves forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

That wraps up our seven-minute round. We'll go to the five-minute round and see if we can get in two or three members in that time. We have about 12 to 13 minutes left, so somebody might get cut off here.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

I'm trying to understand a little better this idea of analyzing laws and regulations to make sure they fit with environmental goals and are consistent with other laws and regulations in protecting the environment, and so on.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Vaughan, you were saying it's not really your role to look at upcoming laws and regulations and make judgment on whether they're environmentally sound, whereas it's Mr. Miller's role to do that, as per his legislation. He has the power and duty to do that. Am I correct in my understanding?

[Scott Vaughan]

That is essentially it. As you know and as members know, the role of OAG is to examine the implementation and performance of programs that exist. There's a time period, where we would say three or four years afterwards how they have been doing. Moving forward, we'll do whatever Parliament requests.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Going back to Mr. Warawa's point--

Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Miller.

[Gord Miller]

May I clarify? You didn't quite put it the way it's done.

For instance, let's say we're talking about a piece of legislation. If there's an issue going on, I may become engaged; I may even on my own initiative bring forward an issue on such things. But once it has progressed to the posting of a proposal on the environmental registry, and especially a proposal pursuant to a law, I cease comment until after it has gone through the entire consultation process and the legislature and is passed. It's only afterwards that I review it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

How can you review it before the proposal?

[Gord Miller]

I do not review legislation before.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So it's after as well.

[Gord Miller]

It's after; once it's in the legislative process, I reserve all comment until it's concluded.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Warawa's point that we have a federal Sustainable Development Act, which requires the government to analyze its programs, policies, laws, and regulations through an environmental lens.

Mr. Vaughan, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to saying that your role in auditing these plans is really sufficient, because you bring an independent perspective to those, and therefore you're already going to be doing it through that law. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, yes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

I'm not quite clear on civil actions. There is already a right to private prosecution here in Canada, is there not? Somebody can take another private entity to court for breaking an environmental law, and so on. That exists. So why do we need to talk about civil action in this bill if that right already exists?

I'm told that attorneys general can stay a civil action in Canada. Would an attorney general still be able to stay a civil action under clause 23? Is clause 23 somehow stronger in that it wouldn't allow an attorney general to stay a private prosecution?

You see, industry came to see us, and they were quite concerned about the civil action clause. They feel it makes them vulnerable, when, in fact, there is already a right to private prosecution in Canada. They're saying, look, if environmental laws and regulations aren't strong enough, it's the government's fault and it's the government's problem. They think it's a good idea to have judicial review of government policies, but they'd rather we left them out of this and sorted out these issues in democratic fora.

[Scott Vaughan]

Mr. Chair, I know that the next witnesses are from Justice Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

[Scott Vaughan]

I wish I could help, but I'm in the position of not being a lawyer. That would be in an area that would be outside of our....

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, that's fine. I apologize for that.

Do you agree, Mr. Miller, that in terms of civil action, it shouldn't be every resident of Canada who can seek recourse, that it should be somebody who's affected by an action that a company or someone else has done to harm him?

[Gord Miller]

I'd have to fall back on the way we define it. We keep it open with respect to harm to a public resource. That is probably the most relevant here. We're not talking about people who suffer economic damage. Let's leave that aside. A claim of harm to a public resource is the closest equivalent we have. It is open to all parties, but the remedies are listed in quite a lot of detail and are quite restrictive. You cannot benefit, personally and financially, from such a lawsuit. You can ask the courts for remedies centred on the environment.

So we deal with that very strictly. People have to come with their own means, in our case, because there is no advance cost on such things. They can bring an action asking the courts to stop this or do something.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

The time has expired.

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

My thanks for your submissions and for being with us.

Mr. Vaughan, you talked a bit about how your current mandate may not be as directive as you might want, sometimes, with the result that you and your staff have to be adaptable. Is that accurate?

[Scott Vaughan]

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear.

Our mandate is very clear. I think the honourable member's question was whether we always audit programs or areas that are absolutely clear. I wish the answer was always yes, but sometimes things are less clear. Our mandate, however, is absolutely clear on what the OAG sets out.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Currently, can citizens request that you monitor compliance through performance audits and review the responses to petitions?

[Scott Vaughan]

Citizens, through the environmental petitions process, can write through our office to the Auditor General. They can pose any question or express any concern to any federal minister on any area under federal jurisdiction related to environment and sustainable development. The ministers have a legal obligation to respond within 120 days to the questions, concerns, or issues raised in an environmental petition.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Does the same thing currently apply to residents of Canada, as it does to the citizens? Do residents have the same privileges?

[Scott Vaughan]

Our legislation relates to “a resident of Canada”.