Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, just to support what Mr. Woodworth has said, the witnesses who came to the committee were basically divided up into two groups. There were witnesses who represented industry and Canadians in general, and they opposed Bill C-469. The only groups that supported Bill C-469 were those who were special interest groups, actual groups that would profit from Bill C-469. This supports what Mr. Woodworth has just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. Seeing no other interventions, I'll call the question on amendment NDP-10.

(Amendment negatived)

We will move to amendment NDP-11. Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I wish to table an amendment to the effect that Bill C-469, in clause 22, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following:

(3) In making a decision or an order respecting an application brought under subsection (I), the Federal Court retains jurisdiction over the matter so as to ensure compliance with its decision or order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Do you wish to speak to it?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, thank you.

I've brought forward this amendment as a result of litigation that was proceeding through the courts at the time the bill was being drafted, and this provision has been recommended to me by a number of legal experts so as to provide certainty that the Federal Court retains the jurisdiction to ensure compliance with any decision or order that it renders.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Armstrong.

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

Again, this amendment doesn't change the basic premise of the section. The Federal Court already has the discretion to grant public interest standing to those who meet the test set out in the section. It's appropriate that the Federal Court retain this discretion. It allows the court to discourage frivolous litigation. And that's what we're talking about today: the increase in frivolous litigation caused by this bill. We need it to preserve scarce judicial resources and ensure that the determination of an issue benefits from contending points of view of those most directly affected by the issue.

This allows any entity—it could be a foreign entity that sets up in Canada—to challenge any project in any province, including Quebec, projects in Atlantic Canada, projects in Alberta, B.C., and all across the country. You don't even have to be a Canadian citizen to do it. Nor does this amendment address the concern that is likely, that this provision would increase litigation on environmental matters, which in turn could lead to a situation where government priorities would have to be determined not by the best interests of the citizens of Canada but rather by the success of individual litigants, as opposed to the broader public interest.

Therefore, I'll be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I feel it necessary, Mr. Chair, to yet again clarify the false information that the members across the way are providing. As I have pointed out numerous times, the term “entity”—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth, on a point of order.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The difficulty I'm having with what Ms. Duncan has just said is that she has applied that accusation of false information indiscriminately. To my knowledge, I haven't provided anybody with any false information in respect of this debate. I am not sure I correctly remember the parliamentary rules that prevent a member from accusing another member of lying, but to my ear, I've just been accused of lying. And I ask the chair to rule that out of order and to direct Ms. Duncan not to repeat such slanderous accusations, at least if they're directed at me. I'll let my colleagues speak for themselves, but I rather suspect they feel the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As you know, we are not allowed to use language here that we wouldn't be allowed to use in the House. We definitely do not want to impugn other members.

That being said, I'm here to keep decorum and exercise that authority. However, I do not have authority to censure, nor can I rule on these types of matters, to tell you the truth. If somebody believes he or she has been impugned, the proper course of action is to raise a point of privilege or to put forward a motion. That would then go to the House for consideration by the Speaker. Only the Speaker has the power to censure.

I do ask, though, because my job is to ensure that we have decorum and respect around this table, that we stay away from unparliamentary types of language.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, I at no time said that anybody lied. If their preference is, I would say...and if they let me finish my sentence, I was clarifying the information that I thought was incorrect. That is that it could be a foreign entity. As we have discussed on other provisions, the term “entity” is defined in the act. I simply wanted to clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Seeing no other hands, I call the question on amendment NDP-11.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(On clause 22—Right to review a government decision)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We go back to the original clause, clause 22. It's not amended. It stands in its original form. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Armstrong.

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

What does the clause do? Well, clause 22 provides that:

Any resident of Canada or entity, regardless of whether they are directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought, has standing before the Federal Court to review a government decision that would otherwise be open to judicial review...provided that

(a) the matter arises in the context of environmental protection;

(b) the applicant raises a serious issue;

(c) the applicant has a genuine interest in the matter; and

(d) there is no other reasonable or effective way for the matter to get before the court.

Well, the Federal Court already has discretion to grant public interest standing for those who meet the tests set out in this section. It is appropriate that the Federal Court retain this discretion. It allows the court to discourage frivolous litigation. And, again, that is what we're encouraging here, frivolous litigation, which is going to increase red tape. It's going to increase the pressure on valuable judicial resources, scarce judicial resources, and assure that the determination of an issue benefits from the contending points of view of those most directly affected by this issue.

It is likely that this provision would increase litigation on environmental matters—we heard from the Chamber of Commerce who said as much—which in turn could lead to a situation where our government priorities, the government that is duly elected, the government that represents the people across this country, are going to be now determined by the success of individual litigants, individual litigants who may not even be Canadian. It could be foreign entities; it could be entities that are set up in Canada. It could be any small group from any part of the country now challenging in court something that happens all the way on the other side of the country that has no direct impact upon them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On a point of order, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Did we not deal with the identity of litigants earlier in the bill? Would that apply to the rest of the bill, or would we need to insert something here?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, I think we stood that.

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

We stood that?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We stood that, didn't we?

Yes, we stood that. We're going to go back to it, so that's still--

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

When did we vote on the first item when we came back then?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We come back to stood clauses after we get through the rest of the bill.

If you look at your agenda, you'll see that once we finish clause 26, we go to definitions, which is clause 22. We then go back to stood clauses 6 and 9, and then we go to the preamble. That's the process.

Mr. Armstrong.

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

I would hope from that intervention that we can count on the Liberal Party, when we do get to that, and they will stand behind us when we discuss the definition that we're talking about here.

It's likely, again, that the provision would increase litigation on environmental matters, which in turn could lead to a situation where government priorities are determined by the success of individual litigants as opposed to the broader public interest, which is why we should all be here.

Because of that, because of this broader public interest, instead of special interests across this country, I'll be voting against this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bigras.