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.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Bigras?
I had you at the beginning, Mr. Ouellet. You're good?
Ms. Murray and then Mr. Bigras.
December 1st, 2010 / 3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I look at this notice of motion as well as the words of the Conservative members, clearly they don't believe there's a need for an environmental bill of rights. Beyond that--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, the questions and testimony need to be accurate and relevant. I don't believe Ms. Murray is speaking to the bill, so what she's saying is not relevant, and she's making false statements. She knows very well that this government supports a cleaner environment, much cleaner than what was left by the previous Liberal government. What she says has to be relevant to the motion, and it was not.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. It is completely relevant to the motion. The motion is that “the Committee recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with” the bill, which is an act to establish a Canadian Bill of Rights, so if--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
--the members opposite are arguing that this committee, without even going clause-by-clause, should sideline this bill, which I think is what we we heard, or put aside this bill, it's because they don't believe this is an important aspect of Canadian jurisprudence.
Beyond that, the group, the Conservative members, argued again and again that this Canadian bill of rights would be a negative. They occupied many valuable hours of this committee's time, actually, in making the same points from the same briefing notes they had received to that effect. So on the--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, the statement Ms. Murray has made is repetition, and of course our manual very clearly prohibits repetition. You addressed that at our last meeting. So what Ms. Murray has said is not correct. There were new briefings that the committee received and those were referred to and quoted, but not the old, so I would just ask her to be accurate.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Well, this is her first intervention. She can--
Ms. Murray, as long as you're being relevant and not repetitious, you're free to move forward.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of this “point of order, point of order, point of order” interruption from Mr. Warawa, I would like to remind Mr. Warawa that in fact the chair did rule that various members could repeat what another member had said, but could not repeat themselves. We saw a wealth of repetition as each member covered points that the previous member had already made in the Conservative lineup.
One thing that I did hear from amongst the Conservative members is that this bill has “noble” intentions. I appreciate that comment, because what that tells me is that there is a recognition, an acknowledgement, that there's a gap in the current system of laws, policies, and practices to protect the environment, and that in fact our framework and our approach, while obviously doing some of the work of protecting the environment, are not perfect.
That's why these would be considered noble intentions to improve that framework. That's one of my arguments for why we do need to go ahead with the clause-by-clause with I hope the outcome that we will have an environmental bill of rights that every member of this committee can be proud of.
In the discussion about this motion, in arguing for the motion, especially by Mr. Warawa but from others, I heard a repeated claim that all of the organizations this committee has heard, except for the environmental groups, are completely against or would like to set aside the environmental bill of rights. In fact, that was completely inaccurate.
Although I missed some of the testimonies on some of the days, I was certainly here when the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario was. I wonder whether the member considers Mr. Miller's organization an ENGO, an environmental non-government organization, because I heard very strong support from Mr. Miller for the Environmental Bill of Rights of Ontario. I heard encouragement that we have an environmental bill of rights nationally. I heard positive feedback about some of the places where this would be more effective than the Ontario bill of rights, so I really wondered how Mr. Miller would feel about being characterized as one of all of the organizations that weren't ENGOs that were completely against this legislation. If I were the commissioner, I would think that the member across either was not paying attention or was wilfully revising and revisiting Mr. Miller's comments.
I also heard some commentary in support of the motion. This a motion that I will not be voting for, obviously. I heard some commentary that one of the problems with the bill is that businesses would move to other provinces. I think this was with respect to green energy.
I would like to point out that one of the basic benefits and purposes of an environmental bill of rights that's national is that, rather than having a patchwork of laws in different provinces, where you can have the risk of leakage from one province to another.... If one province's regime is different or stronger than that of another province, there is the possibility of business moving into a province that doesn't have quite as strong a regime. This is actually intended to address that, so that there will be a level playing field across the provinces and territories. A level playing field in which there is not the motivation for businesses to leave their own province or territory for another one is a positive, as I think most members would agree.
There were also comments made in support of the motion that this bill, the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, will stop business investment and be very harmful. I would respond by saying that I think the members opposite, in making that claim, have perhaps very little confidence in the business community. Because I understand that the business community wants to be heard, has sent briefs, and has some aspects they would like to see amended, but from my perspective, the business community knows that the social license to operate is very important.
The environmental policies of businesses are becoming more and more a part of what the markets consider when the markets rate businesses, in terms of the bond-rating agencies. In fact, businesses have been leaders in the environment and respectful of the environment in many, many circumstances.
Businesses have banded together with the major environmental organizations, which have long been respected as defenders of good environmental practices. Industries have banded together with them and have come out with strategies that go above and beyond environmental regulations and compliance requirements. I think the forest industry is a good example, as the forest industry's major players have worked with conservation groups to address the concerns that citizens have about the protection of the environment.
So for the Conservative members to essentially say that businesses will withdraw investment if there are good, clear environmental rights and responsibilities and options for citizens to be involved, I think it really undermines the business community and expresses a great lack of confidence in that community's own concern for the environment, and its desire to be a positive contributor to a sustainable economy and sustainable economic development.
Another point raised by the members opposite was the claim that a business that has lost out on a bid or a piece of business will possibly, under this environmental bill of rights, then come in and make frivolous claims and cause investigations that will tie up legal resources and slow down projects. Again I would say that the members opposite have a very poor view of the business community when they express that concern.
Not only do I think the vast majority of businesses are doing their best to be responsible citizens, but I would also point to subclause 15(2) of the bill, which makes it clear that: “No investigation is required if the Minister determines that the application is frivolous or vexatious”. Therefore, businesses cannot tie up the government with their claims and appeals. If an application for an investigation is frivolous or vexatious, it just won't go any further.
Moreover, subclause 23(2) states that “once the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case of significant environmental harm...the onus is on the defendant...”. That's exactly the situation in which we do want intervention. The bill requires that one show a prima facie case of significant environmental harm for these kinds of actions to be taken, so that's not consistent with the members' arguments that there will be a merry-go-round of frivolous claims that have nothing to do with protecting the environment and that are manoeuvres to gain competitive benefits.
Again, I'm discouraged by the absolute lack of confidence these members have in the business community. I would say that they're very cynical and jaded and that they have a black view in imputing to the business community motivations that I think are quite extreme.
Another thing I've heard from the members opposite is that with so many amendments, this must be a bad bill. Mr. Woodworth just reinforced that. We'd heard that already from other members, thus supporting my contention that there was a great deal of repetition as that group used up hours of this committee's valuable time. Mr. Woodworth even made scatological references in making that claim that the amendments...must be a bad bill.
I would say to the contrary. The fact there are so many amendments, none of which are on the substance of the bill but are there for fine-tuning, shows the deep interest of members of all parties around the table to get this right, so that when we have a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, it will be a positive thing for the sustainability of our economy and the protection of the environment. I would take that as a good sign, not as evidence that we should kill this bill without even having the clause-by-clause debate.
Having taken a few minutes to provide my opinion on some of the commentary made by the Conservative members, I will say that I support this bill going to clause-by-clause, because some of the principles are extremely important. There is the fact that it will enable more transparency. That's something that the Ontario commissioner was very clear about. It has had that effect in Ontario. As this bill is written, it will have an even more positive effect on that level, and in a national bill.
I would say that more transparency is something that the Canadian public wants. They want it in general and they want transparency in principle. The absence of transparency is a complaint the government receives on a regular basis, and transparency on the environment is even more important to the public.
Part of the challenge to the environment from human activities are externalities from which there are impacts on the environment that are not costed into the goods and services being produced, therefore making a motivation to produce those goods and services, because they're not including the full costs. Those costs, those externalities, are in the public domain, for the most part. When we pollute, it's everybody breathing that air, not the party that benefited from the production of the good that caused that pollution. It's in the public domain.
This is why it is so critical that we have more transparency, because the public goods and services provided by the environment—the air, the water, the land, the oceans--are being affected by environmental impacts. The public deserves to have more transparency, and that's what this bill is trying to provide.
People need to participate. That's why we also need to go to clause-by-clause. I understand that some of the concerns the members opposite have had and that some of their reasoning--
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Point of order.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, the bells are ringing for a vote. I move that we adjourn.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Interesting comments.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You had a point of order, Mr. Warawa. You can't move a motion on a point of order.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
