Evidence of meeting #46 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.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
This clause almost sums up what the entire bill purports to do. One thing that hasn't been emphasized in these discussions, at least the ones I've been on, is that Bill C-469 plants a dagger in the heart of rural communities, especially low-income and economically vulnerable resource communities.
Rural communities are much more dependent on the harvesting of natural resources than the rest of the economy. The natural resource economy is carrying the entire country right now, and natural resource harvesting and processing occurs in rural areas.
Rural economies and rural communities are the most common targets of environmental activism, whether it's oil sands, pipelines, commercial forestry, the seal hunt, the trapping industry, mining, commercial agriculture, ocean agriculture, intensive animal agriculture, or other resource industries. The common thread is that these natural resource harvesting activities occur only in rural areas. It is almost always vulnerable rural communities that bear the cost of these aggressive and well-funded environmental campaigns.
As a member from a rural, somewhat low-income constituency that depends upon the harvesting of natural resources, I can tell you that it is communities like mine that will be the first targets of the actions allowed under this bill.
Furthermore, this bill introduces U.S.-style litigation into Canada, where it is not appropriate. We just got a letter from Newmont Mining Corporation. They write to us that the draft legislation appears to be focused on increasing avenues for litigation rather than resolving issues or conflicts.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would like to question the relevance of the statements of Mr. Sopuck. This provision does not deal with any standing to bring a legal action. It's a specific amendment to an existing law that does not have relation to any of the rights in the bill.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Ms. Duncan, make sure you say you have a point of order, rather than just a comment or debate, so I can acknowledge it.
Mr. Warawa.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Speaking to that point of order, we're in clause 28 and the paragraph speaks to “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.
I believe my colleague is very relevant. Relevancy is not just for the elites of Toronto or the elites in Canada. It's for all Canadians, including rural Canadians. My colleague is speaking and standing up for rural Canadians. To say that this is not relevant is to be short-sighted about what is relevant to Canadians. I think what he's speaking to is relevant and appropriate.
This is another example of the opposition trying to stifle healthy debate. They restricted the time for debate, and now they're trying to keep my colleague from standing up for rural Canadians. I think it's awful what's happening.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes. In my comments I made no reference whatsoever, contrary to what Mr. Warawa was suggesting, to his speaking on behalf of rural residents. I'm delighted that he would speak on behalf of rural residents. I didn't object to that. I objected to suggesting that this provision automatically provides a right of access to the courts.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm going to rule.
I believe Mr. Sopuck is relevant. He's quoting subsection 1.(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which is broad in its scope. It refers to the individual right to life, liberty, security of person, and enjoyment of property, which Mr. Sopuck was addressing. So I'm going to allow Mr. Sopuck to continue.
However, time has expired. You have six minutes left, Mr. Sopuck, but I will entertain a motion to adjourn and we'll continue this on Thursday morning.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
10:45 a.m.
An hon. member
I so move.