Evidence of meeting #45 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I have just a brief comment.
I would just remind those who are listening at home--because I know that my comments don't get well received by the opposition--that this is simply a misleading tactic. What we are really talking about in these sections is lawsuits, and the real title ought to be that: “Lawsuits”.
So I will not be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay.
Seeing no other hands, I shall call the question on NDP-9.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
We now shall go to amendment NDP-10, on clause 22.
Ms. Duncan, please.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Shall I read the entirety of it into the record?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. I'll just briefly summarize.
I wish to amend Bill C-469 in clause 22 by adding, after line 4 on page 14, new paragraphs 22(3)(a) to (i).
May I speak to that, Mr. Chair?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm recommending the addition of subclause 22(3) simply to provide clarity on the kinds of relief ordinarily provided in a judicial review action and to provide more of a user-friendly version of the bill so that all readers of the bill, including those who might consider an action, understand the types of action that can be brought in a judicial review action.
February 3rd, 2011 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
The addition of this amendment doesn't change the basic problems with this section of the bill. The Federal Court already has discretion to grant public interest standing to those who meet the test set out in the sections appropriate. That the Federal Court retain this discretion...it allows the court to discourage frivolous litigation, preserves scarce judicial resources, and ensures that the determination of an issue benefits from the contending points of view of those most directly affected by this issue.
As the Chamber of Commerce observed, this provision could 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.
If we look at the last section, we are now providing incentives to people to take action against the government. And we say “action”, but as my colleague has said, it actually means “lawsuits”. The Chamber of Commerce is very concerned that it's going to lead to a cascade of lawsuits from many people from across the country on individual projects that have no direct effect upon them.
So I'm going to be voting against this section in the bill.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, perhaps we would need some clarification about the amendment that was presented to us. I see that it looks a lot like paragraph 19(1)(a) on page 11, where declaratory relief is requested.
Why is the honourable member requesting this amendment to clause 22? What is the purpose? I see that the wording is similar. I understand that it's for the amendment…
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Excuse me, we're having some trouble hearing the translator.
It's very quiet; maybe you could speak a little closer to the mike.
Please continue, Monsieur Bigras.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
In fact, I would say that the wording of amendment NDP-10 that was presented to us is similar to the wording that's already in clause 19 of the bill, on page 11.
I'd like to know what motivated the honourable member to introduce this amendment.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Monsieur Bigras, through the chair, a judicial review action is different from other civil actions. One brings judicial review for a specific declaratory relief. You're quite right, Monsieur Bigras, that some of the remedies overlap, and that's somewhat normal. Generally speaking, quite often somebody brings a judicial review action, which is a very straightforward action, to have the court declare and to clarify what the law provides and what the duties and responsibilities are. Once that is done, they may seek additional recourse in the courts, but the court can also direct that certain actions be taken, that there be compliance with the law, for example.
There have been quite a few judicial review actions against the Government of Canada on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, where they sought a declaration to clarify what exactly the requirements were under that act, and then in certain cases to ask that the act be applied was sought. In some cases, the court would declare that they had to actually apply the act properly, and then they might have to review part of the project again and so forth.
So you're quite correct that some of them do repeat, and that's because the remedies are available under both circumstances. But generally speaking, one brings a judicial review simply to clarify the law and direct that the government deliver on its responsibilities.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to point out that in this amendment we have at the outset of the clause the sort of reverse of the notwithstanding provision, which, I mentioned earlier, might be applied if the legislature ever wanted to override this act. I think it's important to note this, because when this particular provision says “notwithstanding remedial provisions and other acts”, the court can go ahead and do these things. If the legislature passed this act, it would be clearly expressing the intent, which I mentioned earlier, that this act be superordinate and supersede all other legislative provisions.
That places this act in a very special category of acts that do have that quality of being superordinate. That's why, in my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to take the highest care when discussing an act like this that will have such a fundamental impact upon people and businesses and job creators and ordinary Canadians, hunters, and trappers across the country who might be affected at the instance of a lawsuit from someone anywhere in the world who comes to Canada to engage in these kinds of lawsuits.
I must say, as a new parliamentarian, I'm very disappointed and rather shocked that we would be discussing this kind of legislation in the manner that we have been. If I haven't said so already, I want to say that I consider a number of these provisions to be very irresponsible, and yet they're passing anyway.
I don't know how I can make clear to those around this table the severity and the importance of what they're talking about today. It's really for that reason that I point out this notwithstanding clause in this amendment, which makes the intention of this act very clear.
I'm sure Ms. Duncan wouldn't disagree with me that she wants this act to be superordinate and to supersede any other laws or regulations in Canada. I'm sure she wouldn't disagree with me when I say that she would regard this as a piece of fundamental legislation of great importance. The only point where she'll disagree with me is that she is speaking on behalf of environmental activists who want the ability to challenge the government and other Canadians with lawsuits. I'm speaking on behalf of those Canadians who would like some balance in their laws and some more moderate provisions. I think we both agree, however, that this is a superordinate act, and certainly the notwithstanding clause in this amendment demonstrates it.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just want to clarify for the record, Mr. Chair, that I don't really appreciate members of the committee imposing motives on me, or whose interests I'm representing, when I'm putting forward this legislation we're trying to argue in support of.
I've had the experience of working with and assisting many persons concerned about the impact of developments on their environment. That includes farmers, fishers, first nations communities, Métis communities, fish and game associations, wildlife organizations, birding organizations, nature organizations, and individual citizens who are concerned about the impacts of certain developments on their communities.
I have other comments about the overall bill. My understanding is we're supposed to be just speaking to the amendment. I will add those later on, but I don't really appreciate having motives impugned to me--except for the fact that I agree that I do think this is a very important bill and I think it is necessary to ensure that environment is considered in all decision-making.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to apologize to Ms. Duncan. I think she's correct that we ought not to be impugning motives, and I do sincerely regret that my comments came out that way.
What I more properly should have said, Mr. Chair, is that everything on the bill that Ms. Duncan has proposed and everything that I have heard her say in this proceeding is supportive of environmental activists who wish to bring lawsuits against the government and against ordinary Canadians. Nothing in this act and nothing I have heard Ms. Duncan say in this proceeding in any way supports job creators and hunters and trappers and other Canadians who wish to go about their business in a system wherein their democratic representatives decide--with balance--how to manage the environment.
Thank you.