Environment Committee on Dec. 15th, 2010

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Woodworth compared this bill to something like NAFTA, which is an agreement between several nations that we worked very hard to put in place. There was also a resolution process put in place for any disputes.

There's no resolution process for any disputes in this, and I have concern about the loss of sovereignty that this clause makes possible. Are we going to open the door for China, North Korea, or other countries with totally opposing types of governments to influence our environmental policy in this country and challenge our environmental decisions?

We have to make sure we protect our environment and our country from influences such as these foreign countries and foreign entities. We do not want to give them access to controlling anything in our country, let alone its environmental future.

So therefore I'm really opposed to this clause, and I support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Can you clarify what amendment we're debating right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The amendment as moved by Mr. Woodworth is that the motion be amended by deleting the words “and entities” after the words “residents of Canada”.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

This will be a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived--[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're back to clause 12.

Mr. Woodworth has the floor, and then Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have three minutes, 50 seconds, starting now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm going to try to make a couple of points very quickly just to highlight them. One of them is that we don't really know what is meant in this clause by “effective, informed and timely public participation”. Our government and our laws already have any number of ways for people to participate, and these are carefully tailored to maximize public participation while recognizing finite government and judicial resources.

So I hope if anyone hears about this they will know that the added costs of greater efforts to offer opportunities of this nature are going to inevitably eat into our environmental budget. There will be less money for species at risk, less money for environmental enforcement, less money for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and so on. It hasn't been shown to this committee, in my opinion, that there is anything wrong with the amount of participation that is occurring at present.

Next, these processes will create further delays. We don't know, for example, whether participation will extend right down to the very issuing of individual permits and what degree of public participation will be required for that as distinct from the making of regulations or passing of statutes. But one thing for sure is that it will inevitably create further delays and create problems along that line.

I want to make a remark that the process that we as a committee have chosen, and have been compelled to choose, for this bill violates the very principles that are purporting to be stated in clause 12, because we have not had an opportunity for effective, informed, and timely participation in the decision-making around this bill. Not only have members of Parliament been restricted in what they are allowed to say because of the opposition motion on time limits, but also, Mr. Calkins's motion to allow further interested persons to testify in relation to this bill has been shelved. We haven't been able to get to it, and witnesses who are alarmed about this bill have not been permitted to testify and to give evidence at this committee because of the opposition and their attitude in that sense. So the opposition--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan on a point of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Perhaps the chair can clarify, but I am not aware of any witness contacting us and objecting that they have not been given the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That is debate.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So we'll let Ms. Duncan debate with me on her own time then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I paused it.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

In any event, I know we've received written submissions, and I rather suspect that, if we asked them, those who have provided written submissions would be more than happy to come and state their views, but that opportunity has been denied.

I'm just pointing out that clause 12 seems to want to give an opportunity for effective, informed, and timely public participation in decision-making in all other respects except regarding the passage of this bill.

I want to say also that we don't know whether this clause may lead to an obligation for the government to fund groups that want to participate in this process, just as that obligation has grown up elsewhere in relation to other legal mechanisms for public participation. We don't even know, for example, if the government will end up funding views of groups--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Like Mr. Woodworth, I'm a good Canadian, and I don't want North Korea making environmental policy in Canada. So I'd like to amend clause 12.

My suggested amendment would be to add, between the words “and” and “entities”, the words “registered Canadian-controlled”.

Now, my registered means Canadian-controlled. I don't know. That's a point of debate.

The point I'm trying to get across is that this would apply to entities or organizations that are truly controlled by Canadians, and not simply Potemkin villages or shell organizations that are representing foreign interests, environmental or otherwise.

I don't know exactly how to word it. I'm open to suggestions. But that's the point I'm trying to get across.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're on to an amendment to insert, between “and” and “entities”, the words “registered Canadian-controlled”.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'd like to hear from our legal analyst, but I think it's redundant. A registered Canadian entity means that it's registered in Canada, which means controlled under either federal or provincial law.

I just think it's redundant, but I welcome the opinion of the legal analyst.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Legal advice?

[Kristen Courtney]

It's not legal advice.

[An hon. member]

Right on.

[Kristen Courtney]

I would have to look into it, to be sure, but of course the committee can define it how it wishes in the definitions section.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, did you accept that? I believe you did accept it.

Therefore, if we have advice from the analyst that she cannot give advice, maybe the appropriate motion....

Would you seek consensus that it be set aside?