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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, you can't call the vote.
Mr. Warawa has just indicated he wants to speak. He has just a couple of minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Scarpaleggia, if you want to take over as the vice-chair, we'll gladly bring another member in.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, in my comments I brought up two points. One, normally the courts have discretion on whether or not to grant standing. We heard that from the analyst. So that is the norm, that the courts would have that discretion. Then we heard that the Canadian Environmental Law Association--which spoke in favour of Bill C-469, possibly having a bias in favour of this bill--wants to make this bill better.
The clock is ticking, so perhaps Mr. Woodworth can speak on this.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just following up on a request that was left with me by Mr. Cannan, who was here a few moments ago, to propose an amendment to clause 11.
It would result in words being added to the first line so that it would read: “Every resident of Canada has an interest in balanced and cost-effective environmental protection and economic development”.
Might I speak to it ?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
It goes back to a question that was raised earlier in our deliberations about the issue of sustainable development and the fact that sustainable development requires that we balance cost-effectiveness and economic development with environmental protection.
I've noted already that there are spots in this act where definitions depart from the international standards. I referred previously to the Rio declaration on the precautionary principle. It is an international declaration and incorporates the issue of cost-effectiveness into the precautionary principle.
Although it's true that one day a Conservative government may have to deal with the irresponsible provisions in this act, I suggest it could also be a Liberal government that one day might have to deal with the irresponsible elements of this act. The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it's unlikely to be an NDP government that will ever have to deal with the irresponsible elements of this act.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So I really strongly urge my Liberal colleagues across the way to stop and think for a moment. I know there is a competition going on between the Liberals and the NDP for a certain left-wing vote that they both think they need, but the reality is that if this provision, if this act, in fact, doesn't balance the issues of cost-effectiveness and economic development with environmental protection in the way that Canada has traditionally approached environmental matters, if this act passes without that kind of a balance, the chickens may some day come home to roost under a Liberal government. For that matter, regardless of who is governing the country, there are going to be problems for Canadians.
We all do have an interest in environmental protection, but we also have an interest in being cost-effective and an interest in being balanced in terms of economic development. Remember that every house we build damages the environment. Every car we put on the road damages the environment. So unless we want to go back to living in igloos and mushing on dogsleds, we do have to do things in a sustainable way and balance cost-effectively environmental protection and economic development. This is just common sense and the responsible approach, and I think it would be a shame if the Conservative Party were the only party to take a common sense, responsible approach to this bill.
Now, had we earlier done something to say that interest meant legal interest only, which is what I think originally this clause probably started out to say, then this point wouldn't arise. But since we currently have a clause that talks about an interest generally, I just want to, as strongly as I can, urge at least the Liberals across the way to take a responsible approach and include some recognition and some acknowledgement that cost-effectiveness and economic development need to be balanced with environmental protection.
I don't mean to leave out the Bloc Québécois, but I know they have no interest in governing Canada and no particular concern for Canadians generally.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
However, that said, I think even the Bloc must be aware that these provisions will affect the people of Quebec, les Québécois, Hydro-Québec, and therefore, the Bloc should also be interested in ensuring that this act balances a responsible approach of cost-effectiveness and economic development with environmental protection.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, we are dealing with an amendment to this clause. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Now, you've said there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. But if I was to seek it from Mr. Woodworth, if it was a very minor change, but made it a little bit more palatable, would you entertain that?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Well, thank you for your indulgence.
Before we had time limitations put on committee members, I shared with the committee the importance of sustainable development--that's a term around here--and this amendment is using the term “economic development”. I think if “economic” was replaced with “sustainable” development.... It includes the three pillars, which is economic, social, and environmental.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So you're suggesting that where the wording reads right now “balanced”....
Every resident of Canada has an interest in balanced and cost-effective environmental protection and economic development
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
So “balanced and cost-effective environmental protection and economic development”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No, I want to replace “economic” with “sustainable”.
Chair, we have not--
