Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Cole, and then Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I have the right to withdraw the amendment now. So I propose that it be withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, because when we're debating bills, I have the power, and I looked at the Bloc when I was putting this on the floor and nobody was paying attention. I was calling for a speaker; no speakers were coming from the Bloc. Mr. Calkins spoke to it. We are now on this amendment. It's on the floor. I put it on the floor. Now you all have the right to vote against your own amendment and essentially defeat it that way.

If you wish to speak to it, I encourage you to speak to your own amendment or why you wish to have it defeated.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

No, I do not want to speak to the amendment. I want to withdraw it. I have nothing to say. I do not want to waste my time, nor other people's.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just give me a minute. Let's suspend for a minute. I want to make sure I'm correct on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Since you wish to withdraw, it will require unanimous consent because the process has started. I already put this amendment on the floor looking to the Bloc. Nobody was paying attention to the chair, the process started, and we are now in debate. But if there is consent by all members to allow you to withdraw your amendment, I will allow you to do that.

Is there unanimous consent for the Bloc to withdraw this amendment?

I do not have unanimous consent.

So we are debating the amendment.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is a good proposal, but it is redundant. It adds something that is already there. We have realized that it is not necessary. Of course, if we proceed, we will clearly not vote against it because it is not inherently bad. It is just that it adds things that are already in the text.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Blaney.

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

I am surprised to hear the Bloc Québécois equivocating on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, when representatives from the Canadian Hydropower Association came here to comment on the bill, they told us about the extremely damaging and harmful effects it would have, about the encroachment into provincial jurisdiction and about the delays it could cause in completing projects. It could even affect Hydro-Québec projects. They saw the possibility of the bill giving powers to judges to cancel agreements negotiated…

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, are we talking about the amendment? The amendment suggests adding the words “to the extent required by federal acts and regulations”.

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

Well…

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Well what? Listen, we are only talking about a few words.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you for that point of order. I am just going to ask that you be relevant to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, it is difficult for me to be more relevant to the amendment. The proposed amendment is a clumsy, lame way of limiting the scope of this bill. The Bloc Québécois seems to be hesitating about its amendment, but witnesses have told us that, in its present form, the bill has no teeth. The people from the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec talked to us about clause 9—how much more relevant can that be, Mr. Chair? I do not have it in my hand, but I will come back to it.

What I want to bring to your attention is that several provisions in the bill encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. It puts hydroelectric projects, sustainable development projects and wind projects in Quebec in jeopardy. The proposal does not go far enough in setting limits on this bill. That is why I intend to oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I notice that in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, section 46.1 recognizes the “right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law”.

So it didn't surprise me at all that the Bloc members would want this bill to be circumscribed similarly, consistent with the legislation of Quebec. It does surprise me that they are now suggesting they would like to have it withdrawn.

Quite frankly, I think this proposal goes a very long way to protecting a provincial jurisdiction from what is otherwise going to be a lot of interference under this act. I can't support this proposal, because it doesn't go far enough, but I do respect the Bloc members for at least standing up to this limited extent on behalf of Quebec voters.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding of the agreement to withdraw the provision is that had it been included, it would have nullified other provisions in Bill C-469. It would have nullified clause 13 and clause 26. Clause 13 deals with the right to propose any new act, regulation, or instrument; and clause 22 with the power given to an auditor to review any draft regulations in the bill. So it would have nullified the later provisions and it would have been nonsensical to include.

It is true it's in the Quebec statute, which I believe was enacted quite some time ago. On reviewing the bills of rights of other jurisdictions, I see they do not include such a limitation.

So the agreement was to withdraw it; otherwise it would have made nonsensical a good part of the bill.

Contrary to what the Conservative members of the committee are alleging, there are many substantive provisions in this bill, including extending the right of access to information, the right to participate, the right to review any existing law or policy, and the right to propose improved laws and policies.

If that amendment had gone through, it would have taken away those rights and opportunities, so the Bloc very graciously agreed to withdraw their amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Monsieur Ouellet, then Mr. Blaney, and Mr. Woodworth.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the statutes of Quebec, more precisely in subsection 19.1 of the Environment Quality Act, this kind of boundary is established, specifically for land use planning and development. Section 46.1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms—and that's what this is about—also establishes the right for everyone. The act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and provide for increased water resource protection does the same.

But we realized that we had our cake and were eating it too, meaning that we had it both ways and that all our precautions were not really necessary. It is not that there was anything bad about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Blaney.

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

I agree with Mr. Ouellet. The two sections he quoted are excellent. One is from the Environment Quality Act and it limits the application of the act by considering other existing ones. The other, section 46.1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to which my colleague Mr. Woodworth referred, reads as follows:

Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.

The right is circumscribed by the words “to the extent and according to the standards provided by law”.

In terms of the bill before us, the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec was very clear: there are no benchmarks. Quite the opposite, it is a free-for-all. The lack of benchmarks creates a climate of constant uncertainty. Is that what we want for Quebec companies? It creates an climate of constant uncertainty for hydroelectric development. Licences and permits issued to companies and compliance with legitimate acts and regulations become almost secondary. In other words, it does not matter whether you abide by the law or not. Anything can happen anywhere and at any time.

There was an attempt at an amendment that intended to rein that in a little, but there seems to be hesitation now. In its present form, the bill is an obstacle to Hydro-Québec's development and the proposals in the amendments do not go far enough. I hope that members will come to the defence of Hydro-Québec by voting against this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Mr. Woodworth. You have roughly two minutes left, not even.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Ms. Duncan has grossly overstated the application of this amendment, since it only applies to subclause 9(1). It really only applies to the issue of a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It does not, for example, affect the obligation in subclause 9(3) of the Government of Canada to be the trustee of Canada’s environment and all that flows from that.

The amendment does help to protect provincial jurisdiction against the problems this act will create, and to that extent, it does a good job. If it only went far enough, I would support it, but it doesn't quite go far enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We are voting on clause 9, Bloc amendment BQ-5, which is line 27 on page 7. It is a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is defeated.

We are going to Liberal amendment L-1.1, which is on clause 9, line 5 on page 8 of the bill, and it reads:

(4) Every person in Canada has the obligation to protect the environment.

This is a new subclause 9(4) moved by Mr. Kennedy.

Do you wish to speak to it?