Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The previous wording of clause 26 was such that it was the Auditor General that would be making that discretionary decision. Since that responsibility now goes to the commissioner, does the Auditor General still have that discretionary power, or is it removed? Is that new responsibility assigned to the commissioner? Does the Auditor General still have that discretion?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I just read from the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker believes that the commissioner's powers are equally as broad as the Auditor General's, because he functions out of the AG's office. So I don't believe that changing “Auditor General” to “Commissioner” in clause 26 changes anything contrary to the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Sopuck, you have the floor.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I do have a disagreement with the point about balance between economic development and environmental quality. The track record is quite clear that in terms of environmental indicators, the wealth-creating western societies, by and large, have the best environmental track record, in terms of environmental mitigation, for example, environmental remediation, and a whole host of other environmental indicators related to the preservation of landscapes. So to me there's no balance at all; wealth creation and environmental protection go hand in hand.

The phrase “sustainable development” keeps getting thrown around over and over again. I'd like to remind the committee, going back to the Brundtland Commission in 1986, that her definition--regardless of what may or may not be in our act--was that “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given....” She then talked about the idea of limitations that the environment does pose to certain kinds of economic development, which I agree with. There are only so many trees you can cut or so many fish you can catch.

But the central feature of the definition of “sustainable development” is that it is a development concept, and the social, economic, and environmental legs of the sustainable development stool are meant to be equal. The poverty and the lack of development was a major concern of the Brundtland Commission when they came up with the globally accepted definition of “sustainable development”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any comments?

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 27--Regulations)

Now to clause 27.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I need some guidance. Perhaps I'll make this a point of order and a request for guidance.

Would it be in order for me to request that you rule clause 27 out of order as exceeding the scope of the act? If that's in order, then that would be the request I would make, and I would tell you why.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The House has already voted on this bill with clause 27. Once it comes to us from the House, after second reading, we have to consider the entire bill. So it's in order.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So I'll just lower my remarks and for the same reasons tell you why I don't think this clause makes a great deal of sense, whether it's in order or not. If somehow, through some magic, I managed to persuade my colleagues that it didn't make sense, perhaps they wouldn't vote for it.

The reason I think it doesn't make sense is because it authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act. As nearly as I can see, there is only one section in the act that refers to the need for regulations, and that's clause 26, which just passed, which seems to suggest that there might be some regulations prescribed about how the Auditor General shall examine other regulations--or rather the commissioner. There's no guidance given. There is no specificity given as to precisely what the regulations are that are contemplated.

I'm reminded of my good friend Derek Lee, from the Liberal Party, who I observed raised this point on occasion in the justice committee, that this seems to give the Governor in Council, i.e., the cabinet, wide-open scope to make whatever regulations the Governor in Council would like to make.

Ordinarily, we would call this a basket clause and we would stick it at the end of a list of regulations that would be contemplated by the act. It would be a basket clause, meaning that this is sort of to catch anything that's already been missed. That only really works well if it's at the end of a list of things the Governor in Council might regulate on, whether it's the time periods for notice, or the proper forms for lawsuits, or whatever it may be. But in this case, we don't have any specificity whatsoever.

If there was a list, there is a legal principle that says that a basket clause like this should be interpreted in accordance with the nature of the items that are specified in the list. The lawyers around the table might remind me of the Latin for that; it escapes me right now. Without any specificity preceding it, there is no way to know what kinds of regulations the Governor in Council might wish to make.

I suppose since there's a Conservative government in office right now, I wouldn't be too worried if the Conservative government wanted to make some regulations that might drastically affect the implementation of this act. But as I can't discount the possibility that in some hopefully very distant future there might be a government of another persuasion, I am concerned about giving the Governor in Council such a wide-open, unspecified authority to make regulations as is found in this proposal.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but we were commenting on clause 28?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Clause 27.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. I'm going to make a comment in support of that. I just want to broaden my remarks a little bit to respond to some of the things that I've been hearing over the course of this bill. The members opposite talk about the balance. Mr. Sopuck talked about sustainable development and the balance of environment and economy.

There's been a lot of implication that the members on this side, the Liberal members, are not for a strong economy. I want to make the point that a strong economy is extremely important. I characterize a lot of the debate that's happened around this bill as not actually being about the environment or the economy. It's actually about the role of citizens, the right of citizens to be engaged, to have transparency, and to have rights with respect to what other parties are doing to the environment, which affects their lives and their future. So it's not surprising that members of a government that has been historic in its attempts to shut down democracy and its attempts to make partisan arm's-length organizations, like the CRTC--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, you've repeatedly asked us to stay relevant and also keep our comments polite. Now a vicious attack by the member opposite is not in keeping with your request.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I do agree that your comments need to be relevant to the clause that's in front of us, which is clause 27.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

This clause is about the making of regulations in order to enact this bill. Mr. Chair, my comments are directly to the heart of the discussion and the heart of the intent of this bill. This bill is intended to empower citizens to be engaged and to have some rights with respect to their environment. That's why it is not surprising that a government that shuts down organizations that say anything counter to the government's view of the world, that defunds organizations that challenge the government in any way--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I think it rather odd that a member of a party that has limited democratic debate at this committee to one and a half minutes for each government member should be talking about shutting down democracy.

Apart from that, I regret to say that Ms. Murray seems to be disregarding your earlier admonition to stay relevant to the clause. She is not talking about the implications of the regulation-making authority, which is granted in clause 27. I would ask you to call her to order once again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, I'll agree with Mr. Woodworth that we want to make sure that the comments are relevant to clause 27. We can't even go on and try to read the crystal ball as to what types of regulations the Governor in Council may want to bring forward on the bill. So let's keep your comments confined to clause 27.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'll just conclude by saying that the provision to make regulations to enact this bill is core to the effectiveness of the bill, so I'll be voting in support of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'd have to offer that I find it frankly quite surprising that Mr. Woodworth would speak against clause 27, given the submissions of the committee. Presentations by him and some of his other colleagues in the Conservative Party have been remonstrating that there wasn't enough detail in the bill.

There are two ways you can present a bill: you can put all the details about every procedural aspect, or you can take an approach where you provide by associated regulations what those procedures might be. That was the choice I made in enacting this.

In fact, by including this provision I'm pretty well giving a blank slate to the government of the day to either expand or constrain the rights and opportunities and duties under the bill through regulations. Of course they'd have to be consistent with the general intent of the bill.

I would just like to close by saying that I appreciated the comments of my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to include myself in the circle of Ms. Duncan's colleagues. I appreciate her compliment to all of us. However, I want to say that I believe that she's missed a third way when she says either you can put the detail in the bill or you can leave all the detail to the cabinet. I believe she's missed the third way, which is that you can enact an intelligently and reasonably circumscribed ability for the government to legislate within confines set out by the legislature.

This is the point I recall Mr. Lee making so ably, that one shouldn't write a blank cheque. In a way, on the issue of accountability, it's almost as egregious to give the cabinet a blank cheque as it is to give the courts a blank cheque, which this bill certainly does in spades.

In both cases, in my view, it is up to the legislature to prescribe appropriate limits. This bill certainly does not prescribe appropriate limits to the authority of the courts. And in this particular case, ironically, it doesn't prescribe appropriate limits to the ability of the cabinet. So it's on that basis that I object. And although I guess I can't speak for Mr. Lee, I'm almost certain he would object too, if he were here, and I've known him for many, many years.

Thank you.

(Clause 27 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)