Evidence of meeting #42 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're not talking about the amendment; we're talking about clause 8 as amended.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
And that's in order? You can talk to it after it's voted on?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, what we are voting on is clause 8, which says now, as amended:
The provisions of this Act apply to all decisions emanating from a federal source
We don't know what that means. The uncertainty of this bill is shocking; we're putting the cart before the horse. We're going to say “all decisions emanating from a federal source” without knowing what that means, or “related to federal land, aboriginal land or federal work or undertaking”—basically anything that actions can be taken by any resident or entity. Chair, it's exactly what we heard from the witnesses.
Just to refresh, what did the witnesses say? Mr. Huffaker, the vice-president of policy and environment for CAPP, said:
In our view, Bill C-469 is not good policy for Canada. We believe it is fundamentally flawed and we respectfully submit that it cannot be amended into good policy.
This is business. This is CAPP. This is the vice-president for policy and environment saying it should be scrapped.
The Chamber of Commerce said:
...the lack of legal clarity will chill any investment consideration.
A fundamental precondition of commercial development, wealth creation, and economic acceleration is that there is a rule of law that can be enforced and counted on so participants know what they have to meet, and that if they meet it they are acceptable. That is what we're asking for. We just want to know reliably what tests we need to meet. In my judgment, this bill fails that test completely.
I can go on and on. There are suggestions that the need for certainty is paramount. Here we go, moving forward on clause 8 as amended, with continued uncertainty.
The bill would also apply to decisions related to private, federally regulated industry. Where harm to the environment is a result of such a decision, a court proceeding may follow. This prospect would increase uncertainty for business interested in engaging in these types of activities.
Chair, what is the definition of federal source? The bill defines federal source as “a department of the Government of Canada”, “an agency of the Government of Canada or other body established by or under an Act of Parliament that is ultimately accountable through a minister of the Crown in right of Canada to Parliament”, or “a Crown corporation”.
Because the bill would apply to decisions emanating from these bodies, the bill would affect industries that are regulated federally and programs that are administered federally. It would also apply to many decisions made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to reserve lands and first nations individuals. This is why we have huge concerns.
Chair, I'm not going to be making this motion, because we're down this pathway now. And that's why we're recording the votes. I'm shocked that we have the Bloc supporting legislation like this, which is going to be bad for Quebec, bad for our first nations. But we are going down this pathway.
I think I'll leave it at that, Chair, and look for comments from others.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The very words of this provision say that this act applies to “all decisions emanating from a federal source”, and Mr. Warawa picked up on that as being quite uncertain. I just refer to it to buttress what I said earlier about the fact that for sure, agreements between the federal government and an aboriginal group would fall into that category. Quite frankly, a decision emanating from a federal source is likely broad enough to include an act of Parliament, unless that act of Parliament specifically said it was to be free of the influence of this pernicious bill.
Having said that, I had a conversation yesterday with an officer of the University of Waterloo. I asked her if she knew we were studying a bill that meant that if the University of Waterloo received funding to build a new building on their campus and they went through a federal environmental assessment in order to implement that, and spent x number of millions of dollars doing that, and complying with federal government regulations, and spent x number of years doing that, the project could still be derailed by a lawsuit at the instance of virtually anyone who could apply to a judge to either set aside the building or modify it? She was quite horrified to hear that that would be possible. I think most Canadians would be horrified if they knew what we were studying at this committee.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
You are not leaving me a lot of time, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to recall the words of the Environment Commissioner of Ontario. He clearly told us that this bill does not contain the benchmarks that the Quebec or Ontario legislation does.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You're going to have to save that for another time. Time has expired.
I don't see any other speakers. The Conservatives have used up all their time.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 9—Right)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We go to Bloc Québécois amendment number 5, which is on clause 9. It adds to the end of subclause 9(1), “to the extent required by federal Acts and regulations.”
Speaking to the amendment, the Bloc could request to speak. If not, we'll have Mr. Calkins.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm surprised that the Bloc isn't actually speaking to their own amendment. I would have some questions or some concerns about this. It appears that some of the testimony we heard, particularly from the Canadian Hydropower Association and various other witnesses, and the lines of questioning brought on by my colleague, Mr. Blaney, in defence of his own province and in defence of Canada, for that matter, basically spurred the Bloc to make this particular amendment.
It is to amend by basically focusing the bill....
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We've already started speaking to it. You can't withdraw a motion on a point of order, to start with, unless there's consent.
Is there consent for the Bloc to withdraw this amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I was pleasantly delighted to see this amendment in here, because it reduces the scope and power of the bill, to a certain extent, from how broad it originally was.
To hear that the Bloc actually wants to withdraw this right now actually gives me great concern. I know that my colleague, Mr. Blaney, will probably be speaking to this. I can't speak about the intentions of others on this committee, but it would seem to me to circumscribe the extent to which the law would apply.
We heard from many witnesses that the legislation is overarchingly broad and would have undoubtedly damaging consequences. So “to the extent required by federal Acts and regulations”, it would seem to me, on the cover, is a good notion. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that it doesn't matter. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, we can call it something else, but the reality is that it's probably still a duck.
It appears to be a good amendment on a relatively flawed clause. I have a lot of concerns about clause 9, all three parts of it. Of course, the Liberals have an amendment to add a fourth subclause to this particular clause. I hope they're not going to withdraw their motion either.
Mr. Blaney, did you want to speak to this particular amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, I've studied this, I've looked at it, I've discussed this with my colleagues. It doesn't look as if this is an amendment. While I do applaud the effort to limit it, and I applaud the Bloc Québécois' notion in recognition of federal acts, I don't think it changes the clause substantially enough to allow us to vote in favour of the amendment or the clause in its entirety.
