I'll make my comments brief, Chair. I look forward to hearing from other members.
Just to summarize, we heard from the witnesses that this is a bad bill. The question often asked by members around this table was whether it was redeemable, and the common theme was “no”.
Of course, the environmental groups--and we appreciate that they were here--were the ones who wanted the big stick, to be able to intimidate and get action, to force people to do certain things their way, otherwise they had this big stick.
We heard overwhelmingly from the witnesses that the fundamental principles of the bill were to provide this huge stick to intimidate and to strip out the right to private action by any one individual, even on existing permits. It was at the heart of the bill. And to strip that out was not realistic.
Therefore, the recommendation we heard from the various witnesses, the vast majority, was that this bill should be set aside.
It's not often we hear that. Usually it's amendments. But in this case we heard overwhelmingly to set the bill aside.
The fact is that we continue to hear from witnesses. There was a brief submitted by the Business Council of British Columbia. It's a long letter, so I'll just read the last paragraph.
It reads as follows: To conclude, the Business Council of British Columbia believes that Bill C-469 should be set aside--which is what the motion does--
and we urge this Committee to do so. By any standard, the Bill represents a major departure from past Canadian policy and administrative practice. It would usher in an era characterized by i) more costly litigation, ii) an unprecedented expansion in the role of the Courts in environment-related policy-making, iii) increased uncertainty for Canadian businesses and industries that rely on approvals, licenses and permits, iv) a greater administrative burden on Federal Ministries and agencies, v) higher costs for taxpayers, and vi) more intergovernmental conflict and discord.
We heard how hydroelectric plants in Quebec, British Columbia, across Canada could have action taken against them. I don't want that in British Columbia. I'm hoping my Bloc colleagues will protect Quebec.
The obvious thing is to listen to the witnesses. The recommendations are right, and therefore the motion to set this aside.
Thank you.