Environment Committee on Dec. 15th, 2010

[Kristen Courtney]

To clarify, Mr. Scarpaleggia, you asked before about the word “deny”. It is true that usually it is the court that denies standing.

One of the witnesses, Theresa McClenaghan, suggested wording to address the situation. To address the situation where the Government of Canada is participating in a lawsuit and opposes a person's standing—so they make submissions to the court that the court should deny standing—the wording suggested by this witness was that the federal government “shall not deny, oppose, or otherwise contest this standing”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

[Kristen Courtney]

That would be one way of dealing with what I think is envisioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I think that clears it up. Ms. Duncan said she would accept that wording. So I don't know how we get--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We vote on the first one and then you can table that.

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

I guess we'll vote against these amendments and subamendments, and Ms. Duncan can propose new wording?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, you should propose it, I think.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Ouellet, it is your turn.

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

I would like to talk about the evidence given by Ms. Teresa McClenaghan, Mr. Woodworth's colleague. I will read this to you in English, because I do not have the French translation; my apologies to my francophone colleagues.

It reads as follows:

We also support the standing provisions in clause 11. We would make a technical note that this should be broadened because it's generally the courts who make standing decisions. So we should specify that the federal government would not deny, oppose, or otherwise contest the standing of residents interested in environmental protection.

That is my comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're voting on the amendment by Mr. Warawa, with the help of Mr. Woodworth, to delete the words “or to appear before the courts on environmental matters” after the word “decision-making”.

All those in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

It is defeated, so we are back to the main motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I believe I have another minute and a half.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll let Mr. Warawa have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I would move, as Mr. Calkins has brought to our attention, that the first part, “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection and” be deleted.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, may I speak to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're on the amendment. I know you're next on the list on the main clause.

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

I don't know how it works, Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're on the amendment that was just moved by Mr. Warawa.

I'll go to Mr. Calkins, and then I'll give you the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, I don't want colleagues around the table to think that this is anything more than simple housekeeping. The reality is that while it would be hard to find a Canadian who wouldn't agree that every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection, this comment is purely, in and of itself, editorial insofar as the legislation is concerned.

We just had a motion brought forward and an amendment by the Liberal Party at the last meeting amending clause 10 of the bill, saying that every Canadian has an obligation to protect the environment.

Again, this is a very assuming statement that every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection. While I certainly have an interest in it and while I believe the sponsor of the bill has an interest in it, and while I believe every member of this committee has an interest in it, it's a little bit assuming that every Canadian would view that this clause is absolutely correct.

I believe it has no bearing and should have no bearing in a court of law because it is basically legislating the morality of environmental thinking in the country. Therefore, I simply suggest that we remove it.

The clause, in its intention, is about the Government of Canada and its ability to involve Canadians who are interested, but to make the broad statement that every Canadian is interested, I think is simply more of an editorial comment in its lecturing and frankly quite condescending to Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I'd like to call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can't call the vote.

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

No?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.