Evidence of meeting #37 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I said:
Did the witness say that he represents people in Hydro-Québec?
Mr. Ouellet said “Yes”.
Now, Chair, we heard from Mr. Jacob Irving, and this was your question to him:
I just want one clarification as chair. In your presentation and in your responses you definitely have reservations about the bill. Would the Canadian Hydropower Association prefer that the bill be set aside or be amended?
Mr. Jacob Irving said:
There is probably opportunity for amendment, but it depends. Ideally one would like to see the amendments come through that deal with all of our issues, and then that's fine. But if those amendments don't come to the fore, then being set aside would have to be the logical choice.
So the concern we heard from the witnesses is this: will the bill be adequately amended or will there be unintended consequences? The concern I've heard is that Bill C-469, entitled the “environmental bill of rights”, in actuality is anything but. It's a Trojan horse that would attack the rights of business, of Canadians. It would attack the rights of the foundation of fairness, of law. It would attack permits. It would attack the confidence within Canadian business and facilities in that everything could be up for an action against them, against appeal. Uncertainty would reign, and that would mean the loss of investment.
So the consequences of this Trojan horse...called Bill C-469. The fact is that every witness, other than the ENGOs, do not support this bill. Their number one recommendation is that it be set aside.
That's what the motion is. As I said before, the points that are in the motion are points that are provided by a legal counsel for the witnesses, and were incorporated into it. I believe they got those points right. I believe they are accurate.
Now, some may not disagree. Some may be willing to take a chance and think they can amend Bill C-469 adequately.
Chair, we momentarily will be looking at a lot of amendments. Some of those amendments came in at 2:13 today. In the spirit of fairness, I don't think amendments should be coming moments before this committee starts. How can we properly prepare when we have amendments from the Liberal Party arrive by e-mail at 2:13 today?
Chair, we have....
Is there a point of order?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, I'm just calling the meeting to order. I'm having trouble hearing you.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, we have amendments from the Bloc.
We have, I think.... I have not seen the amendments yet, because I've been busy and have not had access to a—
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Let me finish.
They think it's funny to send e-mails out at 2:13 and then laugh at this.
I've had preparation to see the amendments presented by the Bloc and by the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Warawa, I'm sorry, but just for clarification, you mean the last amendments that were sent out, that just came at 2:13.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Right. I saw those from the Bloc and NDP members.
The author of the bill, Ms. Duncan...her bill, along with the ENGOs. She has, I believe, 17 amendments.
How can any bill that is that substantially proposed to be amended now...? Will the witnesses we heard have confidence? Will Canadians have confidence, if a bill like this were to go forward?
One of the number one considerations in any regulation, permit, or environmental law is consultation with first nations. Was there any consultation or input from first nations? No. Should there be? Absolutely.
If first nations would be affected by this bill--if it went ahead and passed through the Senate, this bad piece of legislation—without consultation, would it withstand constitutional challenge? What a wrong way, I believe, to begin: to forge ahead without proper consultation.
I'm actually surprised that the NDP would want to forge ahead without proper consultation. But that's what we see before us today.
Chair, is the bill redeemable? Should we be trying to patch up a bad piece of legislation, an American type of “legislation by litigation”, a “kill the Alberta oil sands” bill, or a “shut down Hydro-Québec” bill? No.
This bill, I believe, is a Trojan horse. It's a bad bill. It's not redeemable. What is the solution? Set it aside.
I make my point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
We have a lengthy list already.
Nobody ever talks about Manitoba Hydro. I don't know why.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is quite unfortunate to see this filibustering reappear just when we stopped studying this bill. We have not had the opportunity to discuss it. Setting it aside without even talking about it seems to me to be quite irresponsible for parliamentarians. I believe our role is to look at the bills that are proposed in a fair and reasonable manner. Were we to just set it aside without having even looked at it, we would not play our role in as parliamentarians. Mr. Warawa could very well move his motion afterwards if we were unable to amend the bill according to his wishes. We should at least try to amend the bill according to our various requirements.
I do not agree with those who claim that all the witnesses said that the bill should be set aside. Some of them did indeed say so, Mr. chair, in line with their own interests, of course. We could easily see that. However, most of the witnesses said that this is a good bill or a bill that should be amended. I believe that is why we are here.
Amendments are being proposed, some of them even by the NDP. It seems to me that we should look at them without trying to delay proceedings or by taking too much time in order to get everybody fed up with this bill. As serious parliamentarians, we should look at the amendments one after the other. If after doing this work seriously, Mr. Warawa still believes that the bill is unacceptable, he would be able to move his motion. So, our first order of business, I believe, should be to try and see if this bill can be amended or not. My answer is yes.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I was going to make the same point that I think someone else made, which is that if Mr. Warawa and the government party find certain parts of the bill offensive, or the disagree with them, they can amend the bill. That's all they have to do. Then I suppose they can use their majority in the Senate to kill it before it gets to second reading. That will be their choice.
Second, just because witnesses suggest that we do something doesn't mean we have to jump to do it. That logic could take us to some very strange places.
That's all I really had to say.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First I would like to add a little fact regarding the Canadian Hydropower Association. I can only rely on what my assistant told me, but I did specifically ask her to enquire about whether or not Hydro-Québec is a member of the Canadian Hydropower Association, and the answer that came back to me was, yes, Hydro-Québec is a member of the Canadian Hydropower Association.
So, when the representatives of the Canadian Hydroelectricity Association speak, they also speak on behalf of Hydro-Québec.
Secondly, I have had a look at the amendments of the Bloc québécois. I think that, even if each amendment of the Bloc québécois were to be accepted, this bill would create uncertainty about the implementation of many development projects in Québec affecting fish and the last habitats of migrating birds, those affected by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and those of Hydro-Québec or the government of Québec requiring federal-provincial cooperation. Even if we passed each amendment of the Bloc québécois, all those projects would be threatened by the bill.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Can I raise a point of order? My question is for the Chair.
I fail to see how the member can give an opinion on amendments which have not yet been tabled. I want to remind you, Mr. Chair, that those amendments Mr. Woodworth is expressing an opinion on have not yet been tabled. I understand his wish to speak as quickly as possible about the amendments of the Bloc québécois, Mr. Chair, but, if that is what he wants to do, he should vote against the motion of his parliamentary secretary, which would give us the opportunity to discuss them. So far, they have not yet been discussed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, we are getting into an area that is.... We aren't at the amendments yet; the amendments haven't been made public, but we are in a public meeting. I don't know if....
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
In the debate to this point,
the members of the Bloc québécois said that it is necessary to
consider these amendments.
Amendments from the Bloc have been tabled and placed before me, and if they have not been tabled, at least notice has been given. Let me say that: notice has been given.
I have looked at the amendments that the Bloc has proposed, and I felt that in response to the comments in this debate about whether or not amendments can cure these problems, it was appropriate for me to say that having looked at the amendments for which I have received notice, I have concluded that they do not resolve the issues that I've mentioned.