Evidence of meeting #39 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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We can't predict the expectations of the committee or the outcome of clauses further down. We're discussing the clause in front of us, which is clause 3.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Duncan, for the interruption.
The focus was on the principle of sustainable development. I was referring to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who was here, and to the appropriateness of a commissioner making comments on a bill before us. The commissioner was very careful not to comment on whether the bill was good or bad. The commissioner was commenting on--and will only comment on--performance of the government and assessments in that way.
Unfortunately, Bill C-469 will change the focus of sustainable development. We heard that very clearly. The focus changes from sustainable development to litigation, the big stick. I believe we need to hear from more witnesses, Mr. Chair. What we heard from the witnesses so far, as I had said in response to comments from Ms. Murray, was that, overwhelmingly, this bill should be set aside. Now, unfortunately, through some manoeuvring--
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the comments that Mr. Warawa is making are not relevant to clause 3. If the argument is that the principle of sustainable development should not be in there, that argument has already been made. The rest of the commentary that he's currently undertaking is extraneous to this clause and is appropriate for a later clause.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I also want to thank Ms. Murray for her interruption.
Chair, we heard that it's very important that Bill C-469 create a balance; this is what we heard. And we heard that we have the principle of sustainable development mentioned in the bill, but in fact, it's not in the bill. Bill C-469 would usurp the principle of sustainable development; in spite of it being this clause, in clause 3, it does not address sustainable development.
Now, sustainable development is a term that we've heard often, particularly over the last couple of years, as this committee unanimously supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act and, as recently as earlier this year, the strategy. The commissioner had an opportunity to comment on the strategy from the government. Actually, this committee did too, and it was a good strategy: we now are looking at all legislation--all new bills, permits, everything--through the lens of sustainable development.
That would end if Bill C-469 were to become the law of Canada. The lens would change from sustainable development to a lens that is entitled an environmental bill of rights, but is anything but, and that's the other concern. It has the title, “environmental bill of rights”, but does it have that balance? It does not. We've heard that from the witnesses.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the debate is not concerning the principles (a) through (e) that are outlined in clause 3, so I would appreciate it...if this member would like to debate clause 3 itself, let's do that, but this member has some other debate going.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
On this point of order, Mr. Chair, I may be reading this incorrectly, but it seems to me that paragraph 3(c) talks about “the principle of sustainable development” and clause 3 itself is an interpretation clause, which requires the whole act to be interpreted consistently with these five principles.
What I hear Mr. Warawa doing is talking about how the principle of sustainable development may or may not be used to interpret this act in accordance with clause 3. Now, I admit that I'm doing two things at once here, but I didn't hear him say anything that went outside the discussion of the principle of sustainable development, and that seems to be entirely within the four corners of clause 3.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
On the same point of order, I do not understand why basic principles are now being called into question. That is what Mr. Warawa is doing. He is questioning basic principles environmental protection that have always been accepted. He is starting from scratch and says he is against this principle. Mr. Chair, this is sheer nonsense.
The basics of environmental protection are being questioned. The member is talking about the whole legislation and not clause 3 specifically. Let him tell us why he is against the precautionary principle and sustainable development. We could understand him better and grasp whatever he is saying.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Warawa is fully capable, when we get to the other clauses of the bill, of referring back to clause 3 and suggesting that a later clause is not consistent with a clause 3 principle, but what he's doing is conjecturing forward.
It's perfectly appropriate for him to speak to whether he wants to strike that full provision, or part of it, but what he can't do is conjecture at this point. He can't disagree with later clauses to which he has trouble applying clause 3. They are later clauses that we haven't got to yet.
The argument is perfectly valid, and he can make that argument, but he can't raise that argument when we're talking about clause 3. All we can talk about is clause 3. Does he agree with the provision that in applying the act we should consider those principles? What I'm finding really puzzling is that although he argued for two days that this principle should be found throughout the act, he is now arguing that this very principle shouldn't be there, or something.
It's out of order. His argument can be raised when we get to clause 4 or 5 or 6, or whatever clause he thinks is not consistent with one of the principles outlined in clause 3, but in my humble opinion it's inappropriate to raise that argument when we haven't even started to discuss the later part of the bill.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Woodworth pointed out exactly what needs to be said here, and that is that this is an interpretation clause. Actually, rather than focusing on just one of the clauses, we should probably develop the arguments and implications of each of them prior to approving clause 3. I think it's appropriate to talk about the implications and consequences of how sustainable development is seen throughout the whole act, and that's what Mr. Warawa has been doing.
Each of those things needs to be examined in detail in order to understand the implications for the act, and I don't understand why the opposition would object to that approach, unless there is some reason they don't want that examination done. I think we're completely appropriate here.
It says that the act must be interpreted consistently using these principles, and it would seem logical and reasonable to discuss the implications of those principles before we move ahead any further.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, we heard testimony from witnesses. The witnesses could choose to speak to whatever part of this bill that they chose, and we had a good number of witnesses who spoke specifically to clause 3. I feel that we have had testimony supporting the inclusion of those principles from a number of witnesses already. If some witnesses said that the principles shouldn't be there or that one should be added or taken out, we can consider that testimony.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm a little surprised at the leeway you have given speakers on what is ostensibly a point of order. We now have Ms. Duncan claiming that witnesses said this or that about the point Mr. Warawa is trying to make.
Quite frankly, I've heard nothing but debate over what Mr. Warawa is trying to say. I've heard Mr. Ouellet debate what Mr. Warawa is trying to say, and they'll have their chance; hopefully they'll get a chance to debate clause 3, but that's not what we're talking about right now. What we're talking about is whether or not what Mr. Warawa is saying is relevant to clause 3.
Even if you don't agree with what he is saying, you surely must be able to read the words on the page. Those words say that clause 3 requires that the act be interpreted in accordance with all five of these principles, including the principle of sustainable development.
Let Mr. Warawa talk about how he thinks clause 3 is going to work. If you disagree with him, let him finish, and then you'll have your chance to make your points and talk about what the witnesses had to say.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. We've heard a lot of discussion on this point of order.
Because the clause does start by saying, “This Act must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law”, and as the principles are already in CEPA, as Mr. Ouellet has pointed out, I'm going to ask Mr. Warawa to make sure that he's talking....
You are going to have to be fairly careful. The clause is general, and you can provide those types of comments on a general basis, but you can't talk about clauses further on in the bill that we still haven't considered yet. But you are free to talk about the general aspects of the act and the supporting testimony, as well as your own ideas on clause 3.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, on a point of order again, I was going to follow up on something Ms. Duncan said. She talked about the witnesses that you had here. I haven't been at committee, but I'm interested to know if you heard from the agricultural community, because from the little bit that I read—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I'm just following up on her.... She said you've heard a lot of witnesses. Have you heard from the agriculture community?