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
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You're right, but I'm going to make a ruling on this.
I don't need to hear any more points of order.
Because they are amendments that have not been moved for debate yet, we cannot discuss what has not been put on the table for debate. Notice has been given, but they aren't tabled, so you are out of order to talk to a motion that isn't before us for debate yet.
Amendments that we will be considering shortly are being made to the bill. Right now we're dealing with Mr. Warawa's motion to set it aside, so I'm going to ask you to stay away from the amendments.
As I ruled on Ms. Murray at our last meeting, until they're moved onto the floor by the committee member who is moving those amendments, they're not up for debate.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I will respect your ruling, Mr. Chair, and simply make my comments very general then, which is to say that the problems for Quebec and for other provinces from this judicial environmental policy bill cannot, in my opinion, be cured by any amendment. And it is inherent in the bill itself that it will encroach upon and interfere with the developments that the provinces wish to encourage, including those in Quebec and including Hydro-Québec.
That moves me to my next point, which is to say that this bill is so fatally flawed in so many areas that in my view it is beyond redemption by amendment. And the fact that we have already had so many amendments proposed in a way reinforces the point of view that this is a fatally flawed piece of legislation. It will end up being a Frankenstein piece of legislation if all these amendments that may come forward are grafted on.
I want to mention two things I see in illustration of the flaws in this bill. First, I'm going to mention a very specific but highly important flaw, and secondly I'm going to mention some themes that run through the whole bill.
As to a specific flaw, I would draw the members' attention to the definition of “precautionary principle”, which is found on page 5, in paragraph 3, of this judicial environmental policy bill. I want to point out that the definition is inconsistent, and I rather think deliberately inconsistent, with all other.... I'm sorry, “all” would be overstating it. It's inconsistent with most other accepted definitions of the precautionary principle.
The one I'm going to hang my hat on is the UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which contains, as principle 15, a comment--
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, is this a point of order? Maybe the member could clarify it.
I'm having a really hard time finding this point in Mr. Warawa's motion.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm sorry, I thought we were debating whether or not the bill should be set aside at this time.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
And I was attempting to illustrate the fact that this bill is flawed, and that is why it should be set aside.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm going to let Mr. Woodworth continue. I don't believe it's a point of order, because I believe that since the intent of the motion is to set aside the bill because there is, in Mr. Warawa's--
November 24th, 2010 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
There are grounds. He's listed five. Mr. Woodworth is suggesting he has other issues with it.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This is a new point of order, Chair.
We have seen continuous, repeated interruptions by the coalition members to stop this side from being able to make our points, which are relevant to the motion.
My question to you, Chair, is whether it's appropriate for the coalition to continue with this tactic of interrupting by point of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm seeing this happening from both sides. I don't think it's any one side of the table that's interrupting on points of order, Mr. Warawa.
From now on, if there's going to be a point of order, make sure it refers to something I can rule on that comes out of O'Brien and Bosc or out of the Standing Orders, otherwise it's just debate, and I'm going to shut it down.
With that, Mr. Woodworth, you have the floor.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I will attempt to satisfy Ms. Duncan's curiosity about the relevance of the precautionary principle to Mr. Warawa's motion, because the third and fourth points of his motion refer to the fact that this bill does not allow for the balance of social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development, and that it overlaps with existing aspects of federal legislation and policies, which give rise to redundancy or conflict.
As I proceed, and I can see this will have to be a little more detailed than I was planning, the precautionary principle, and the salient distinction in this act versus most other articulations of the precautionary principle, has to do with the question of cost-effective measures and preventing environmental degradation.
In this fashion, first of all, the precautionary principle spelled out in this act does not allow for an appropriate balance of social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development. Secondly, it creates overlaps with existing federal legislation and policies, which give rise to redundancy or conflict because the precautionary principle is spelled out in other areas of federal legislation.
With that hopefully succinct answer to Ms. Duncan's inquiry, I was about to read from principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, which states:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
This contrasts with the specific provision in the bill before us, which omits the reference to cost-effectiveness, and which talks about action to protect the environment rather than measures to prevent environmental degradation. Of those two points, the one that disturbs me most is the lack of reference to cost-effective measures, which is symptomatic of this bill's failure to balance the social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development, as mentioned in Mr. Warawa's motion.
Apart from that, however, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, also codifies the definition of precautionary principle, which was used in the Rio Declaration, in its preamble, and that act reads:
...where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;
I'm told that a similar definition exists in the Species at Risk Act, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and the Pest Control Products Act. So in this bill, which is now before us, we are introducing a different definition of precautionary principle and this, of course, is a comment in support of Mr. Warawa's fourth point, which is that this bill overlaps with aspects of existing federal legislation and policies, which give rise to either redundancy, or, in this case, conflict.
The reason I pick on this particular point is that my research demonstrates that at the Rio meeting when this declaration was adopted, and in the debates around the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there were parties who were opposed to inserting the qualifier “cost-effective”. In fact, the way it was described to me is that this was a bit of a flashpoint. But after serious debate and consideration and the realization that one ought to take into account costs—although we would love to say that we should protect the environment at all costs, even if we have to go back to igloos and dog sleds—we do have to keep in mind costs, and therefore, on sober consideration, almost everywhere else the phrase “cost-effective measures” has been inserted.
I can only assume that the writers of this bill are at least as well informed about these issues as I am, and likely made a deliberate choice to leave that out.
That's a specific concern that I have, but frankly the bill is littered with concerns of this nature or a similar nature. I want to mention three general themes that are objectionable in this bill.
One of them is in fact the one mentioned in the fourth point of Mr. Warawa's motion, about redundancy and conflict. I want to mention some of the evidence we heard the other day.
I do not have edited blues, so I'm going to try to paraphrase what I understand to be the evidence from Mr. Joseph Melaschenko, of Environment Canada legal services, who I believe testified that he thought there was some overlap between the Canadian Bill of Rights and this bill, in that the Canadian Bill of Rights already imposes an obligation on the Minister of Justice to examine the consistency of both government bills and regulations with the Canadian Bill of Rights. If this bill passes with the proposed amendment in it to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that statute will also include the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
So on that point of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment there will be an overlap, because under clause 26 of this bill the Auditor General will have to examine government bills and regulations for compliance with that requirement of this bill, which is a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but under the Canadian Bill of Rights, which will now incorporate the same requirement, the Minister of Justice will have to do the same thing.
Mr. Scott Vaughan, at the Auditor General's office, also commented on the responsibilities placed on his office under this bill and expressed concern with it. In my understanding, he commented that although the goal of ensuring regulatory consistency is important, he felt it was the responsibility of the government, not of the Auditor General or, speaking in his own behalf, of the commissioner.
In fact he pointed out that there were already mechanisms designed to ensure consistency and consideration of environmental implications in government policies and programs. For example, regulatory impact assessment statements must accompany every regulatory proposal submitted for government approval, and each statement must include various analyses and justification prior to implementation; also, the strategic environmental assessment of policies, plans, and program proposals. He as well as Mr. Melaschenko also pointed out the role of Justice Canada as the central agency responsible for providing advice on all legal matters.
It may be easy for us to sit around here saying we don't care whether there are two government paid offices doing the same job, but in point of fact this act is littered with redundancies of that nature. I think we have a responsibility to Canadians to not pass legislation that duplicates efforts.
The second theme—
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's a question. I'm trying to remember my Beauchesne, but is the member not filibustering the motion? Isn't there a limit to how much he can do that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We don't have any time limits. The committee would have to decide whether there are limits on how long somebody speaks.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
In other words, there's nothing you can draw from to limit the filibustering of this motion?
Okay.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order over the comments that were just made. Quite frankly, I thought we were starting out on the right foot when we spoke earlier about respecting members and not impugning their motives.
I want to contain myself a little bit, but to suggest that I am filibustering when I am raising legitimate points of debate impugns my motives, and if there is a point of order that says that a member ought not to impugn motives, then I wish to raise it now in response to the comments of the member opposite.
It's fine for him to say so, if he wants to move a motion that we should cut off debate, but for him to suggest that I'm not raising legitimate points of debate and am simply filibustering is an impugning of my motives, and I believe that is contrary to parliamentary procedure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'd ask, Mr. Kennedy, that you retract your statement about Mr. Woodworth. We all know that Mr. Woodworth has always done a great deal of research and has taken care in his presentations to committee.
We are in debate mode. I'm not going to censor members, but as I said, we don't want to impugn anyone's reputation. I would ask that you not imply that Mr. Woodworth is doing something that is considered unparliamentary.