Evidence of meeting #36 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.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Okay.
Since 1995 how many times has the petition process been used?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It's been used approximately 350 times in total.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Have you had any feedback on how this process works, or the effectiveness of the process?
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
My predecessor did an evaluation in 2007. I think that among the findings was that it was an important tool to enable Canadians to get a response directly from federal ministers. It was not a tool or process that was well known. It remains, in my view, not well known, but it's an important part of democratic accountability.
In addition, if I may say something related to what Mr. Miller said, for me the numbers aren't as important as the fact that each one of these petitions represents a commitment of a Canadian resident to go through, understand, research, and post questions directly related to federal responsibilities. We provided a guide to help them in that. So each one of these, in its own right, we view with great seriousness.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
Is the current bill before us now, that you're here to comment on, in any way redundant with the current legislation in place that you administer?
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
This would be then speculating on what may happen in the future if the bill were passed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
If it were passed as it's written now.
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Correct.
It could be redundant. The reason I say this is that if this becomes Canadian law, and there are obligations under federal law related to those obligations, the current environmental petitions process empowers any Canadian resident to pose any question or concern relating to existing laws and regulations. So if this does become a law, it arguably could fall under the existing orbit, if you will, of what's in the OAG act related to the environmental petitions process.
So there potentially could be redundancy. As I understand it, however, there are two different parts of the process in clauses 13, 14, and 15. There is an investigative process, which would be a little different.... It is different; it could be included, but it is different, or it's more precise than what is in the existing OAG act.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Do you anticipate these redundancies causing an increased amount of bureaucracy that would delay projects or increase litigation going through the courts?
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We didn't provide any analysis. We looked at it purely from our own internal ability and whether we could support an increased number through the bill. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we see the similarities and we could accommodate them under existing resources within the Auditor General's office.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Miller, thank you for being with us this afternoon.
Mr. Miller, you said earlier than Ontario's EBR provides comparable rights. That is what I'm interested in: jurisdiction. If you say that there are comparable rights, in that case, how do you deal with someone who is subject to two statutes, one within federal jurisdiction and the other within provincial jurisdiction, which basically have about the same requirements? What should that person do and what would your advice be? Should that person invoke the Ontario statute or the federal statute?
4:25 p.m.
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
Well, our legislation is very definitely prescribed to provincial statutes in areas of provincial responsibility. With some regularity, we get requests to our office, for instance, to pursue things under the federal Fisheries Act, which we now have to turn back. We simply say it is federal legislation and does not apply.
In fact, the legislation we oversee and respond to actually has to be a legal step. Something actually has to be prescribed, by regulation, to apply to me. I currently have 14 government ministries assigned or prescribed under legislation...and I don't know how many pieces of legislation. In any given ministry, maybe not all of their legislation would be prescribed under....
So it's pretty well defined on our side in that there would be no overlap, from our perspective.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Yes, but in terms of the federal statute, do you not see this as intrusion on your jurisdiction? Don't you think that Bill C-469 could possibly interfere with your provincial jurisdiction?
4:25 p.m.
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
I have worked in this field for over 30 years and I can only see one area where that would occur, and that's in the provisions of the federal Fisheries Act. Someone could pursue a dual action in the case of a deleterious substance--to use the federal legislation--that was put into waters that have fisheries in them. You could pursue it through me under the Ontario Water Resources Act, and pursue it conceptually through the federal commissioner and the Fisheries Act.
Aside from those pieces of legislation, the jurisdictions are pretty discrete, and I'm not aware of another area where there would be a conflict. Many of the other things only apply on federal lines where our legislation doesn't apply.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Do you think it would be valuable, as a means of respecting provincial jurisdiction, to avoid the possibility of a conflict between federal and provincial jurisdiction?
4:30 p.m.
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
I think that would be valuable. Certainly I have pursued, over many years, trying to get clarity on the question of the Fisheries Act, just historically where it has been much more vague. It is quite clear now.
If you wanted to put in a provision to say, for instance, that in issues under the Fisheries Act you had to choose between provincial legislation and federal legislation--remember, not all provinces have the same legislation we do--then I think that would be quite reasonable. It would certainly give very good clarity to my staff and me.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Merci beaucoup.
We are at the bottom of the hour and we want to switch witnesses.
I want to thank Commissioner Vaughan and Ms. Smith from the Auditor General's office, and Commissioner Miller from the Ontario government, for coming in and sharing your points of view on Bill C-469.
We are suspended.
4:34 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call the meeting back to order.
We will continue with our second hour on Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.
Joining us now from the Department of Justice we have Eric Nielsen, counsel with the public law policy section, and Kathleen Roussel, the senior general counsel and executive director of Environment Canada legal services. She is joined by Joseph Melaschenko, legal counsel of Environment Canada legal services.
Thank you all for coming.
Madame Roussel, could you kick us off with your opening comments?
November 22nd, 2010 / 4:34 p.m.
Kathleen Roussel Senior General Counsel and Executive Director, Environment Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. It was very interesting for us, as Justice counsel, to have an opportunity to hear what the commissioners had to say who appeared before us. I hope we can help to answer any other questions that have been raised.
Mr. Bezan has already introduced me and my colleagues Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Melaschenko. Once again, we are pleased to be before you today to answer your questions.
Specifically with respect to the consequential amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that you are surely aware that it is an issue of particular interest to Justice. Mr. Melaschenko and myself will try to answer any factual questions you may have in relation to existing environmental legislation or other such matters in relation to the bill before you.
As you are aware, as Justice counsel, we are not able to provide the committee with advice about potential amendments to the bill, or any other matter that would be covered by solicitor-client privilege.
Given the issue of particular interest to Justice--namely, the amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights--I'll now turn to that specifically.
Our understanding of the amendment is as follows. By enacting this consequential amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights, Parliament would--to use the language of the Canadian Bill of Rights--recognize and declare that there has existed and shall continue to exist a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and a right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Parliament would direct--again to use the language of the bill--that every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe, or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment, or infringement of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
Finally, Parliament would direct the Minister of Justice 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 right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and to report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
With this understanding of the consequential amendment, we will be happy to entertain your questions.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Merci beaucoup.
We'll go with another seven-minute round.
Ms. Murray, you have the floor.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thanks.
Thank you for being here to help clarify the justice department's view.
I want to get your opinion on some concerns that were raised by one of the members here, in a motion. There's been a notice of this motion. The question I have is whether from a legal perspective you see this being a problem in terms of trumping existing regulatory processes and creating regulatory unpredictability.
4:35 p.m.
Senior General Counsel and Executive Director, Environment Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
I'll start by saying that you're not going to hear any of us, I think, talk in terms of something being a problem. It's a matter of the policy choices that parliamentarians can make. We can, however, speak to some overlap that will be created.
I'd ask Mr. Melaschenko to speak specifically to something that Commissioner Vaughan raised in respect to clause 26, because I do think there clearly would be some overlap between--