Evidence of meeting #38 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Chair, I wanted to come back to the question that I asked the witness from the Shipping Federation of Canada. This is what he said, “I don't see the reason for this law.”
Mr. Chair, is it really the committee's job to play the sorcerer's apprentice with Canada's environmental laws? That is what we need to ask ourselves when considering Mr. Warawa's motion. That is the question I put to you, Mr. Chair, and to myself. My answer is “no”. I have no intention of wreaking havoc on Canada's environmental regime with a bill that would create regulatory unpredictability, according to all the stakeholders. Mr. Chair, we heard from a number of witnesses that this bill would make life very unstable for them.
Obviously, I want to start by talking about a witness who, in my view, is extremely important, Mr. Irving, the president of the Canadian Hydropower Association. As we all know, Hydro-Québec is a member of that association, Mr. Chair. These people ran out of adjectives to describe just how disastrous this bill would be for the hydroelectric industry, Mr. Chair. This is a bill they described as “harmful” and “destructive”, Mr. Chair. This is a bill that would have extremely detrimental and disastrous ramifications for the country's hydroelectric development, a jewel in Canada's renewable energy crown. This is a bill that would harm the development of green energy sources, Mr. Chair. And that is nothing to scoff at.
Not only did we hear about the redundancies the bill would create, Mr. Chair, but we also heard a lot about the uncertainty this bill would create, particularly in terms of the legal actions it would expose developers to. We know that this kind of legislation would totally discourage investors from undertaking any sustainable development projects, Mr. Chair—the people who have plans, the people who truly want to pursue sustainable development initiatives—because they would have to operate within a process that would open them up to legal action. Their position is clear. This is a bill that would hinder sustainable development by creating a climate of uncertainty. I think the Canadian Hydropower Association made its view abundantly clear.
But theirs was not the only evidence we heard. We received a legal analysis covering five points, which, to my mind, are extremely relevant, and that analysis is even more reason to support Mr. Warawa's motion, especially if members care about respecting federal and provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Chair, you know that we are committed to the principle of open federalism. That means that we accept that the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction. So we must ensure that the federal government's legislative agenda respects areas of provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-469 clearly infringes upon provinces' jurisdictional authority over the environment, as I just mentioned. As we all know, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction. We also know that since that time, environmental law has come a long way. And that has been possible because we have been able to maintain a balance, Mr. Chair. Under this bill, anyone would be able to challenge a bill at any time, but only after it had gone through all the legal, administrative and environmental channels.
We know, for instance, that Quebec has instruments such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) in place. We also know that the Canadian government works alongside the BAPE. When a situation arises requiring intervention under the law, Canadian legislation stipulates that an assessment be done, and that assessment is carried out jointly, Mr. Chair. That brings to mind a project that was subject to a joint assessment by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the BAPE—the LNG terminal project, to name just one.
So, as you can see, there are already mechanisms in place. Once the process has been completed, once a decision has been reached, Mr. Chair, and reasonable and necessary adjustments have been made, we have to live with those consequences.
Under this bill, anyone could turn everything upside down and create a climate of legal uncertainty. That is totally unacceptable. That infringes upon the provincial domain.
For that reason alone, the bill should be withdrawn, reviewed and reworked to make sure that it respects jurisdictional authority, one of the tenets of Canadian federalism.
As I mentioned, by jeopardizing the future of hydroelectric projects, the bill creates an imbalance in terms of sustainable development, an area that seeks to align the interests of the environment, the economy and society. At the end of the day, this bill throws that balance out of whack. It duplicates existing legislation, as we saw, Mr. Chair.
Of course, one of the most important points was raised by the officials from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They told the committee that we could not move forward with this bill because it did not make any sense. It does not take into account decades of work on the part of parliamentarians to set up national environmental protection agencies.
Mr. Chair, we have clearly seen that this bill truly creates considerable legal uncertainty, for all sorts of reasons. That is why we absolutely must take the time to discuss Mr. Warawa's motion at length and to carefully consider our role as parliamentarians. And as such, we have a duty. We must do the responsible thing and defeat the bill.
In conclusion, I would remind you of what the Canadian Hydropower Association said. Stakeholders in other industries shared those same concerns with us.
For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I intend to support Mr. Warawa's motion. And through you, as always, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues across the way and my Quebec colleagues to stand up for sustainable development in Quebec and to put a stop to this bill.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, thank you for the opportunity to share a few more points.
We've heard concerns from basically across Canada on how this could affect existing facilities, right from the Maritimes through Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Canada is a vast country with natural resources that have been developed. We heard from the witnesses that as these natural resources are developed, it's not quick; it's with a lot of thought. It can take years and years before we actually see something tangible creating electricity.
To its credit, this committee at the end of the last Parliament saw the passage of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. That was where everybody on this committee started working together, which was good. We heard from the commissioner last week that this work, that lens by which we look at all existing and new legislation, goes to the lens of sustainable development, which has the three pillars. We heard that all of that work will be set aside and there would be a new lens. That new lens would be an environmental bill of rights that would supersede this sustainable development lens.
That raised a lot of concern, and now, hearing from my colleagues, I feel I have a responsibility to share with the committee what the Business Council of British Columbia wrote to the committee.
I already read the last paragraph, so I would also like to read the introduction, as follows:
The Business Council of British Columbia is pleased to provide comments on Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. By way of background, the Business Council, established in 1996, is an association representing approximately 260 large and medium-sized enterprises engaged in business in British Columbia. Our members are drawn from all major sectors of the provincial economy. Taken together, the corporate members and the associations affiliated with the Business Council are responsible for roughly one-quarter of all jobs in British Columbia. The Council maintains an active interest in environmental policy and regulatory matters. At first glance the idea of a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights may hold some appeal, but a close inspection of Bill C-469 raises a number of serious concerns about the probable consequences of the proposed legislation.
Mr. Calkins spoke eloquently about that, the devil being in the details.
The letter from the Business Council goes on: Bill C-469 would grant any Canadian resident the right to obtain information on, and to be consulted about, any Federal environmental activities; to pursue administrative review of Federal instruments pertaining to environmental decisions; and to launch actions in the Federal Court against the Government of Canada for failing to enforce environmental laws/regulations, violating the right to a healthy environment, or failing to perform its duties as a “trustee” of the environment. In our respectful submission, the proposed Bill is not the right approach for improving Canada's environmental performance. If adopted as law, it would dramatically change the nature of environmental protection in Canada, pave the way for an explosion of litigation, greatly increase uncertainty for business, and impose additional costs on Canadian taxpayers. The Business Council strongly opposes Bill C-469, both in principle and because we have concerns with a number of specific aspects of the Bill. Section 9 of Bill C-469 would establish a right for every Canadian to “a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” This language is vague, and it is unaccompanied by the definitions and limitations necessary to give public authorities and private parties the certainty and information they require to make well-informed decisions. Section 9 would allow any person to initiate legal proceedings against a federally regulated business with the claim that the activities of the business infringe on their right to a “healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” As we read it, it may also create a similar right in respect to businesses that aren't federally regulated. Worse still, sub-clause 23(3) suggests that regulatory compliance is not a defence for any business put in this position.
More broadly, the Bill implicitly adopts a view that regulators, Parliamentarians and other public authorities cannot be relied upon to arrive at sound decisions pertaining to the environment. It proposes to substitute the opinions of citizens and the courts for the balanced judgments of legislators, regulators and government officials charged with protecting and advancing the overall public interest. In this respect, Bill C-469 casts aside the efforts of past governments and Parliamentarians to establish national agencies and to enact rules and regulatory procedures to protect the environment.
As I said in my opening comments, this is what it does even with sustainable development strategy. It sets it aside as the new lens that everything is looked through, and the pillars of economic and social considerations are gone.
The letter goes on:
Under section 16 of the Bill, Canadian residents would have wide scope to seek recourse in the Federal Court to allege that the Government of Canada has failed to perform its duty as a “trustee” of the environment.
November 29th, 2010 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
On a point of order, is constant repetition of the same idea permitted?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
We've heard from many members about how this bill would allow private citizens to call into question whether certain environmental regulations are being enforced and so on. The issue has come up many times. It's starting to resemble--maybe--a filibuster. I'm not saying it is, but it's starting to resemble one.
I don't know what you think about that, Chair.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Let me defer.
You need to be relevant with your comments, and you can't be repetitious in your own comments, but it doesn't prevent somebody from stating the same basis of other members.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
But I think there's been repetition from one member.
I can understand if each member of the government side wants to take an hour to discourse on the bill; I think that's their right. But one would think that after all five have spoken, there would be no need to come back to one of them again.
I just question that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I thank Mr. Scarpaleggia for his comment and his concern.
Ironically, the concern he raises is the very point that I am trying to make and I think others around this table are trying to make--namely, that he has heard repeatedly from every witness that this is their concern, and yet we have him and others on that side trying to rush this bill through...and “Don't confuse Canadians with the facts”.
Canadians know the facts, Chair. They know this is very serious. And that's what we're hearing repeatedly.
Now, I am not repeating anything that's already been said. What I'm sharing is a brand new brief from another witness.
I'm really shocked that members opposite would not want to hear from Canadians on this.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I just want to mention, on the point of order, that Mr. Scarpaleggia generously offered to allow each of the government members to speak for an hour. I want to say, at least in relation to Mr. Warawa's motion, that I'll decline that generosity.
