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.