Environment Committee on Feb. 1st, 2011

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Go ahead now?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, if you want to move your amendment on the floor and please explain the amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to table my amendment NDP-5. Shall I read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I move that Bill C-469, in clause 13, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 8 the following--

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I haven't been able to hear the French interpretation on channel 2 for the last few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, we're having some problems here. I do apologize. This is the first actual meeting in this room. I know they had a couple of test runs through here, but we may be experiencing some technical difficulty.

Okay, we're good to go now.

Start again, please, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wish to table an amendment to clause 13. I move that Bill C-469, in clause 13, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 8 the following:

( 1.1) Within 20 days of receiving an application made under subsection (1), the Commissioner shall make a record of that application and send a copy to the appropriate Minister.

I'm putting forward that amendment to make this bill consistent with the Auditor General Act, which gives this kind of a specific provision and is also consistent with the Ontario and other bills of rights. So it gives clear direction on how to proceed with the applications and the actions of the commissioner and his duty to actually send it on to the appropriate minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any other comments on the amendment?

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan, for moving your amendment.

We heard a bit of testimony. Unfortunately, we're going back quite some time now, so I don't remember it all. But going through the bill right now, subclause 13(1) reads:

Any resident of Canada or entity that believes that an existing policy or an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under an Act...may apply to the Commissioner for a review by the Minister responsible

The whole problem--and I think this is why Ms. Duncan is moving this amendment--is that the application was made to the commissioner, but in subclause 13(2) the actual response is made by the minister. I guess this is simply a technicality of bumping from the commissioner's office to the minister's office so that the minister can then fulfill his duties under subclause 13(2). Is that correct?

I believe we heard several testimonies from witnesses and from Ms. Duncan basically saying that this is to make it consistent with what's already in the Auditor General Act for the Commissioner of the Environment to do, which is what was said in the testimony we heard, that this section of the act actually doesn't do anything new. It doesn't allow Canadians any more abilities than they have. It does lay it out maybe a little more specifically, but it doesn't add any new rights for Canadian citizens to engage in the democratic process, which they already have through the petition process under the Auditor General Act.

So I appreciate what Ms. Duncan is trying to do to clean up her own bill, and I guess if this clause is going to pass, the addition of that subclause would seem to make sense. But because the entirety of the bill doesn't seem to make any sense, I'm going to have a hard time supporting it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment agreed to)

We shall now move to Liberal amendment LIB-1.3.

Mr. Kennedy, would you move that onto the floor?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is so moved.

Essentially we're looking at making available the results of the review in writing to the party making the request. It allows the commissioner to review the minister's conclusion before he writes to the party making the request.

We heard from Simon Fraser University on how useful the amendment would be, giving it additional weight in terms of making sure that somebody gets a chance to look at it before it is finally done.

So the commissioner is the effective part of this, in terms of allowing input in expertise and review before the final report back from the minister to the parties involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any comments on amendment LIB-1.3?

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Looking at the addition of subclause 13(5), it reads:

Upon conclusion of the review and with the approval of the Commissioner, the Minister shall communicate the results of the review in writing to the party making the request.

Upon first glance it does appear that this seems to be a nice clause at the end of this section of the bill, which does bring some closure and brings things back--and of course it's always nice to communicate with people after they've made a request. Notwithstanding that, the same argument I used in my first address still stands here, insofar as this section doesn't do anything that isn't already available to Canadians.

I just wonder, and maybe my colleague can elaborate or explain to me, the way I read “Upon conclusion of the review and with the approval of the Commissioner”, is that simply a closure from the commissioner to make sure that the Commissioner of the Environment has fully dealt with the particular issue? Because in my understanding, I don't know of any other part or section--and maybe others can help me--or any other laws that we have in this country in which parliamentarians are held in abeyance because somebody from the Auditor General's office says we can or cannot do something. Normally, the Auditor General's office goes in after decisions are made and audits whether or not those decisions were acted upon fully. In no other place do I see members of Parliament, ministers of the crown, or any other of our agencies actually waiting for permission from the Auditor General's office or the Commissioner of the Environment's office--one and the same--to do or act on anything.

Is this supposed to be a matter of courtesy, to wait for closure from the commissioner's office, or is this actually empowering the commissioner's office far beyond the scope of what I think the commissioner's office should have?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Kennedy, could you respond, please?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the member opposite, I don't know why the independent commissioner would be a threat to any self-respecting minister doing his job following the act. That's all the commissioner is going to do. The commissioner has no powers beyond. So in what manner is this an affront to anyone? It simply is making sure that the process is being followed.

I believe you remember the committee where the testimony came forward that the request from outside bodies was for more involvement and engagement by the commissioner. We felt there shouldn't be that much weight or financial burden on him. So this is just truing the process, making sure it is what this law purports to do.

I appreciate your interest in it working better, but the environment commissioner is an officer of Parliament through the Auditor General and is there for exactly that purpose, to ensure that we abide by our processes. There are several others, the elections commission and so on. That's what Canadians want us to do, make sure that if we pass a law it's actually adhered to. And that's the role we're asking him to play.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to find the provision. I found it when I spoke to the Speaker's ruling on whether the bill should proceed. My understanding is--and I think it might be in the Federal Sustainable Development Act--that the commissioner for sustainable development is in fact given a similar but more limited role under that statute.

This provision, clause 13, in no way prevents any minister of the crown from reviewing any law, any regulation, statute, or policy at any time. It absolutely does not interfere with that power. What it does is it gives Canadian citizens.... It's my understanding that the Conservative Party of Canada stands on the platform that there should be more grassroots involvement in law and policy-making at the federal level. This provision helps to enable that. It provides a process whereby a resident of Canada, or entity, as defined in the act, has the right to submit an application to the commissioner seeking that a statute, law, or policy be reviewed. It's at the complete discretion of the minister to decide whether or not to proceed with that review.

The amendment that Mr. Kennedy has put forward simply ensures that this is done in an open, transparent, and informed manner. So I don't comprehend the objections to the overall provision.

This provision, as with other similar provisions in this bill, is intended to finally implement a Canadian domestic law, the commitments under the North American agreement on environmental cooperation. Article 1(h) of that agreement commits Canada, as it does the United States and Mexico, to “promote transparency and public participation in the development of environmental laws, regulations and policies”. This measure merely implements in domestic law a sensible, forthright, open, transparent procedure to deliver on that commitment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have just a quick comment. In large measure, this section duplicates what goes on in relation to our existing system of petitions. And I'm not referring specifically to the amendment. But the problem we will now have is that there will be dual streams, dual procedures. There may be concerns raised by the public on the same issue under both streams.

Up until now, at least, I haven't heard any evidence whatsoever that there's anything wrong with the petition process already in existence. I don't believe we've had any evidence of that. In fact, when the commissioner for the environment testified in delivering his report, there seemed to be a suggestion that the petition process was working very well.

What we're really doing here is making the law more complex. We are increasing red tape, without any evidence-based reason to do so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Indeed, section 22 of the Auditor General Act does give the power to the Auditor General to receive petitions from residents on environmental matters but specifically limited to sustainable development. The provision in this bill in clause 13 is specific to the review of law, regulation, and policy. So it is not identical and it does not introduce any new red tape. It simply allows for an application on a more specified manner to flow through the same kind of procedure that's already in existence.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Calkins, and then Mr. Woodworth.