Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

(Clause 4 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 5—Remedies not repealed)

We'll move on to clause 5. It states:Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to repeal, remove or reduce any remedy available to any person under any law in force in Canada.

Are there any comments?

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, clause 5 allows citizens to use legal remedies other than the ones provided for in this bill, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, for example. Although we have seen that that act has a number of remedies that are extremely harmful, if not devastating, for industry and for entrepreneurs of all kinds.

I have already expressed my concern to committee members about that clause, which, far from removing remedies, provides additional ones and allows anyone in the country to come along and oppose existing bills or acts that have already been approved.

So I have a lot of reservations about that clause.

That is all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There's still time left.

Mr. Woodworth, you have about six minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. I won't need all of that. I just think this is an appropriate place to mention the recurring problem with this bill of it being duplicative, overlapping and, to some degree, redundant.

Any number of other recourses are available to people to deal with environmental issues. Of course, they're all preserved in this bill. Some of them are quite similar to the remedies in this bill; I'm thinking in particular of the petition process with the Auditor General to initiate investigations, but I'll return to that point later. I just want to say that this just reinforces the problem of this bill creating a number of redundancies and duplicative proceedings and actions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers, I will ask if clause 5 shall carry.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Clause 5 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 6--Purpose)

Clause 5 has carried, so we're going to clause 6 and Liberal amendment number one.

First I'll read the main clause, and then I'll read the amendment.

The clause reads:

The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to (a) safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment;

(b) confirm the Government of Canada's public trust duty to protect the environment under its jurisdiction;

(c) ensure all Canadians have access to i) one adequate environmental information,

ii) justice in environmental context, and iii) effective mechanisms for participating in environmental decision-making;

(d) provide adequate legal protection against reprisals for employees who take action for the purpose of protecting the environment; and

(e) enhance the public confidence in the implementation of environmental law.

The amendment proposes adding, after line 18, on page 7, the following:

This Act is intended to complement Canada's rights and obligations under international law. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any international convention in force in Canada, the provision of the convention will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

Now we're talking to the amendment.

Mr. Woodworth.

Actually, we should let the Liberals go first.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes. I won't take up the whole eight minutes.

I just want to say that this deals with a concern raised by the shipping industry when it appeared before us. It's one of those industries that is highly governed by international protocol and norms. They felt somewhat vulnerable to the fact that they could be following international conventions and norms and yet still be a focus of or subject to legal complaints.

I thought it would be appropriate to take that concern into consideration in the bill. That's why I'm proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

If Mr. Warawa wants to speak on the amendment, I'm quite content to let him speak first.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. There are two legal issues with this amendment that are going to create problems if it's adopted. It took me a while to put my finger on the problem when I first read it, but I had a conversation with someone and it became clear to me.

It's largely around the word “inconsistency”. I have seen this precise wording in a submission from a shipping group, I think, and I'm assuming that's where it was taken from. The difficulty with the word “inconsistency” is that it's not very legally precise. Most often, one would see the word “conflict”, as in “if there is a conflict”. Something might be somewhat inconsistent but not necessarily in conflict. I don't know how this will play out in the implementation of it, but I think it's a somewhat more vague and imprecise word.

The second problem legally with this provision is that it talks about an inconsistency between this act and the provisions of an international convention in force in Canada. I'm not sure that is the right way to proceed, in that sometimes Canada will ratify an international convention but at least not necessarily implement it in law immediately, if at all.

I would have thought that a better approach would have been to talk about a conflict between the provisions of this act and any other provision of Canadian law flowing from international written obligations or something along that line. To be honest, I haven't tried to figure out how it could be cured, but these are problems that I expect this committee and the House will be leaving to future generations if this amendment is passed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the input from my colleague. It's nice to have a lawyer here who is passionate about the environment too.

This amendment from the Liberals doesn't address the issue of vagueness we have found throughout Bill C-469. Unfortunately, the clause sets out vaguely defined concepts, such as the “right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment”, which have those uncertain implications.

The amendment does not address the issue of duplication, and the issue of duplication was raised by every witness we heard. The purpose of the proposed bill includes ensuring access to information and effective public participation, goals that have already been supported by existing laws, policies, and programs. What the amendment seeks to--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a point of order.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm sorry, but Mr. Warawa is proceeding too quickly for me. I'm failing to see how he's addressing the amendment.

However, I'd like to point out that if it's a question of cleaning up some words, of using the word “conflict” instead of “inconsistency”...or as Mr. Woodworth remarked, perhaps we need to tighten it up a bit to take into account that sometimes there's an international agreement that Canada hasn't ratified yet. I'd be willing to entertain those kinds of friendly amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Warawa--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But I do have a question for our analysts.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I will rule on that point of order first. Then I'll let you raise another point of order.

But on that point of order, I will ask you, Mr. Warawa, to speak slowly, for consideration of our interpreters.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Am I speaking to the point of order or using my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I ruled on that point of order.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, do you have a question?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What I'm trying to figure out...and this is a question to the analysts in reference to Mr. Woodworth's point that sometimes there are international conventions that are not ratified by Canada--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.