Mr. Chair, thank you.
The letter continues:
The Federal Court, in turn, would have access to a range of remedies. Legal advisers inform us that the sweeping scope of this provision could end up impinging on provincial authority in respect of the environment, thus setting the stage for intergovernmental conflict and discord.
That applies directly to one of the points in the motion that it would encroach on areas of provincial environmental jurisdiction.
It goes on:
Because the Bill in its present form puts environmental protection above all other public policy goals, there is no room for the weighing and balancing of interests and the exercise of careful judgment that are the essence of policy-making in our democratic legislative system. While environmental protection is a very important consideration, policy-makers have a responsibility to take other goals and factors into account, including economic development, jobs, energy security, and the need for predictable rules governing business activity. Bill C-469 basically treats all public policy goals, apart from environmental protection as illegitimate or, at a minimum, decisively subordinate. The Courts, instead of democratically accountable public policy-makers, would be empowered and indeed encouraged to continuously challenge the decisions made by Government agencies or even Parliament.
That is a huge concern that we heard over and over again. Should Parliament be making the decisions or should that be usurped and given over to the courts? That's not what Canadians want, Mr. Chair.
Section 22 of the Bill envisages that any “plaintiff,” even someone far removed or completely unaffected by a specific matter (such as issuance of an individual permit), may apply for judicial review of a Government decision. This provision, if implemented, would be certain to lead to a marked increase in litigation around environmental assessments, approvals and permits issued by responsible Federal Ministries and regulatory bodies.
Under section 23, we note that compliance with the terms of a permit or license is not a defence to a civil action that may be brought under this provision--and the current language appears to contemplate that it would apply even to matters falling within provincial/territorial jurisdiction. Needless to say, this would cause a high degree of uncertainty for many business operators while also setting the stage for conflict between levels of government. In our view it is wrong in principle for a piece of Federal legislation to openly encroach on provincial jurisdiction or purport to limit the exercise of legitimate provincial powers in this way.
Section 10 is intended to ensure effective access for the public to “environmental information,” but there is no reference to protecting confidential commercial information. While we are not opposed to measures that increase public access to environmental information, we believe that safeguards are needed so that confidential business information is protected from disclosure.
Section 13 contemplates that any entity or resident of Canada could ask for a review by the Minister in respect of any policy, Act or regulation relating to or having an impact on protection of the environment. This far-reaching provision would be sure to result in a significant increase in the administrative burden on Federal departments and agencies and cause a slowdown in governmental decision-making processes affecting a wide range of projects and investments.
Then there are the closing comments saying that Bill C-469 should be set aside.
Again, that's another example: it should be set aside. And that is the motion before us today.
I believe, Chair, the question before us is this: does the committee support, as I believe it should, setting aside Bill C-469?
There are two other options. We could call for more witnesses. We've heard from this side repeatedly on the importance of hearing from witnesses. There is this deluge now of new testimony that we're receiving from the clerk, with the vast majority raising concerns about how bad Bill C-469 is. Should we hear from those witnesses? That is an option that we could consider.
What about first nations? We've heard that first nations have not been consulted. I'm actually quite surprised that first nations have not been consulted, when in fact this could affect them. It could affect treaties right across this great country and destabilize the good relations we have. I'm quite surprised that we're moving forward so quickly without hearing from witnesses.
Basically the third option, Chair, is that we quickly get this out of here, and through the House, and get it through Parliament so nobody will really notice what is being proposed. Hopefully that is not what is going to happen in this committee.
At this time, I think we need to be very careful. The prudent and logical thing is to set it aside.
I think it was one of my colleagues here, maybe Mr. Woodworth or Mr. Calkins, who suggested that maybe we start again. This bill is so badly flawed that we need to set it aside and start again.
I'm done. Thank you.