Evidence of meeting #43 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.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I mentioned on a number of occasions how every time I look at these things I see some new interesting little nonsensical thing. On this occasion, having read this paragraph for about the fifth time, I realize that what line one is actually trying to talk about is a legal interest, and that's the phrase that appears in the last line of this clause, “legal interest”.
I think what the clause is really trying to say is that because every resident has a legal interest in environmental protection, they shouldn't be denied standing, because they don't have a private or special legal interest.
Why the clause doesn't say that, I don't know, but it doesn't say that, Judges are required to find meaning, so some judge somewhere down the road is going to be asking, if we're saying legal interest in the latter half of the paragraph and just interest in the first half of the paragraph, what does that mean? What does it mean that a resident of Canada has an “interest” in environmental protection rather than saying a “legal interest”? This is just another poorly drafted clause, in my opinion, which we shouldn't as professionals let pass.
I think all of us here are professionals. Not just Ms. Duncan and I, who are lawyers, but everyone here as parliamentarians have some kind of standard to pass coherent legislation, not mishmashes, which throw together different terms for the same thing in the same paragraph.
The one thing I am glad about, though, is that this clause doesn't give an interest in environmental protection to foreign agents.
I see Ms. Duncan laughing about that, but it's the only clause in this bill that I can see that doesn't give foreign agents the same rights as residents of Canada. I'll speak about that more later.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. I have nobody else on the list. We're voting on the amendment to delete the words “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection and” from clause 11.
(Amendment negatived)
We're back to the main clause.
Mr. Scarpaleggia.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I'd like to amend clause 11.
I'd like to add to the phrase “shall not deny”, and say instead “shall not deny, oppose or otherwise contest”.
We're just adding about three words.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Yes.
I don't know if the grammar is proper here, but....
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay.
We have an amendment on the floor by Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Mr. Woodworth.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I would just like to be very clear from the analyst whether or not the Government of Canada can deny standing to a resident to appear before the courts on environmental matters since we're keeping the word “deny”.
4:35 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I think the purpose of retaining the word deny there is because you've got two parts after that. So no, the Government of Canada can't deny a person standing to participate in a court matter, but the Government of Canada can deny a person standing--the first part says “to participate in environmental decision-making”. So I think it encompasses both of those.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
That being the case, if one were trying to draft a proper clause to incorporate Mr. Scarpaleggia's idea, I would have suggested, if it were my amendment, that the words “oppose, or otherwise contest” should go in the clause that relates to the courts, since “deny” is sufficient to the other issues. And since “deny” is not appropriate in court proceedings, the amendment, in my view, still doesn't make sense, and it would require a further amendment, if we're going to do this in a legislative and responsible way, to say further down “or to oppose, or otherwise contest standing before the courts”, etc.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, my question, on this point of order, is where this recommendation came from. It came from the clerk, but where did the clerk hear that from? I think she reported it was from Theresa McClenaghan with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
Is that correct? What's the source of this recommended amendment?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's not the clerk, it's the analyst. And that's not a point of order, but you can ask that question if you want to get on the speaker's list.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I thank Mr. Woodworth for his point, which was clear to me.
As I understand it, if we struck the word “deny” and just left it at “Canada shall not oppose or otherwise contest”, would that suffice? In that case, I would accept a friendly amendment from Mr. Woodworth.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
On a point of order, it's not a friendly amendment suggestion.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Well, whatever.
I'm giving him the opportunity to be friendly.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I don't want very much part, if any, in trying to correct all of the many flaws in this bill.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So if we took “deny” out, it wouldn't solve the problem?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
