Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good morning, everyone.

We're going to continue with our study of Bill C-469.

When we left on Tuesday we were dealing with clause 28. Mr. Sopuck had the floor and had six minutes left.

(On clause 28)

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was talking about what this act does in terms of the introduction of U.S.-style litigation and I had just quoted Mr. Chris Hanks, who is the director of environment and social responsibility for the Newmont Mining Corporation; he talks about the increasing avenues for litigation in this particular act as opposed to resolving issues or conflicts.

I maintain that this emphasis on litigation is definitely not in keeping with the Canadian system of government. I think colleagues across the way mentioned approvingly, in a couple of cases, how U.S.-style litigation seems to work there.

I'd like to talk about an agricultural community in California as an example of how U.S.-style litigation works. It's the agricultural community of Mendota, California. In my remarks I started to talk about how it is rural resource communities and agricultural communities that are always the targets of these campaigns. Quite an ugly picture emerges when you look at all of these environmental activists' campaigns in their entirety. You'll see that it's rural communities and rural economies that are always the victims--and I mean always the victims.

The town of Mendota, California, in an article entitled, “Mendota: a town scraping bottom”, has an unemployment rate at this point of 38.5%. This particular community relied on irrigation and agricultural value-added enterprises. One of the reasons, apart from the difficult economy in the U.S., to begin with...they talked about how “water deliveries from the Westlands Water District to Mendota farmers were cut to 10 percent of normal, with federal officials blaming the...drought”--and this is the important part--“and the need to protect” the endangered “delta smelt and other threatened species”.

So don't ever think that environmental legislation, poorly crafted, does not have human consequences.

In terms of these public interest groups, one always wonders and asks the question, who elected them? They always claim to be representative of the people and the grassroots, and so on. Quite frankly, the only legitimate and true representatives of the people are those of us who have been elected, all of us around this room here.

Many Canadian activist groups, for example, receive a lot of money from U.S. foundations, and it's in the millions right now--the David Suzuki Foundation, $10 million; the Pembina Institute, about $3.7 million.

Vivian Krause, writing for the Financial Post on October 15, 2010, in an article entitled, “U.S. cash vs. oil sands”, talked about 36 Canadian environmental organizations that are funded by a common foreign source. In this case, it was the Tides Foundation. Their multi-million dollar campaign, with paid full-time staff, expensive billboards, and state-of-the-art websites, is anything but a grassroots operation.

Again, in terms of the Moore Foundation, out of the U.S., for example, they have an explicit direction to their grantees. They are expected to influence British Columbia's resource management decisions specifically with regard to oil and gas. I find it quite ironic that in yesterday's debate in the House about the border discussions Canada is having with the U.S., the parties opposite talked at great length about the need to protect Canadian sovereignty, but in this particular case, it's all right to have foreign-funded Canadian activist groups interfere in the sovereign right of Canada to determine how to manage its own resources. Quite frankly, what chance do poorly funded rural communities and small businesses have when confronted with that kind of firepower?

For example, I have a community in my constituency. The total budget for the town is $300,000 per year. Again, one sees a very unfair fight here in terms of foreign-funded Canadian activist groups descending on rural communities and rural economies, something that this particular act will exacerbate. One wonders, in terms of the parties opposite--especially the Bloc and the NDP, with rural constituents and single-industry towns in their constituencies--how they will explain this to their constituents.

Even though there are assurances in the act against litigants ostensibly making too much money directly from lawsuits and litigation, keep in mind that just the fact that litigation occurs will allow these groups to advertise on their websites for funding from their sympathizers, because just the act of suing somebody is an opportunity to fund-raise.

I'd like to zero in for a minute on the definition of what is a healthy and balanced environment because that's key to this whole act. If an environment is not healthy or balanced under this particular act, then litigation can follow. The notion of balance is something that scientific ecologists abandoned long ago, given that disturbance is a feature of every ecosystem--wildfires, avalanches, mud slides, floods, and so on--and how an ecosystem adapts is the key. The environment is never balanced, and the phrase is meaningless, but it will be subject to judicial fiat.

The other thing, as far as a healthy and balanced environment is concerned, is the notion of environmental change versus environmental harm. To some, all human-induced environmental change is harmful. Not so. New equilibrium can be achieved after human use of the environment. An old forest becomes a young forest. Some reservoirs become fisheries, and so on.

The problem is that one person's change is another person's harm. It's something that will be fought over in court, in the absence of common sense and scientific information on what the actual impact may be. However, in clause 23, which allows for lawsuits by any Canadian entity against various developers, I think we should be careful about what that entails

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck. Your time has expired.

Are there any other comments on clause 28?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I reject the contention of the previous speaker that this bill is against rural communities, and that everyone in rural communities just wants the economic activities to go ahead, without considering the environment. In fact, some of the most constructive and participatory people looking to have that balance and protect the environment are members of rural communities and the grassroots organizations that grow up in them.

I've met many of them, and they're to be respected and appreciated for the voice they bring to finding a way to reduce or mitigate impacts on the environment in their backyards, in their areas. They care about the jobs, but they also care about the legacy of a clean environment for the future.

On the member's comments about writer Vivian Krause and all of the exaggerated comments she has made about funding from foreign sources, I would point out that she was a lobbyist for the aquaculture industry and a staffer for a Conservative member of Parliament. So it's not surprising that she's out attacking Liberal and other parties' initiatives and defending Conservative initiatives. I would ask where her funding now comes from.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order. I don't believe Ms. Murray's comments are relevant to clause 28. I think she's taking--

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, neither were Mr. Sopuck's.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

--great liberty when she talks so generally about Liberal or Conservative positions on the environment, when she well knows she supports dumping raw sewage into the Juan de Fuca Strait.

We have, Mr. Scarpaleggia, a Liberal policy of dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence.

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

I have a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I am on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

He's on a point of order.

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

I'd like to respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You'll get a chance.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So if she wants to go to extremes on what is good for the environment, I think the Conservative position of protecting the environment and the Liberal position of dumping raw sewage are quite different.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth is next, and then Mr. Scarpaleggia and Ms. Murray.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order regarding relevance, I want to remind every member present that the clause we're debating at this time is historic. Since the Canadian Bill of Rights was passed in 1960, it has only been amended once. That was on a very technical point of not requiring the Minister of Justice to examine bills or regulations that had already been examined. But there has never before in the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which is a historic benchmark in this country, been a substantive amendment. When we are proposing in clause 28 to amend it, we are truly engaging in historic activity. So I think it's a shame that we only get eight minutes for five members to speak to it.

Secondly, it's a shame that we have to descend to talking about who's been a staffer for Conservatives and who hasn't. Surely when we are talking about a piece of legislation before us that is so historic--the first time in 50 years that there has been a substantive amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights--we should be able to rise above such things.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I think Ms. Murray was responding to something Mr. Sopuck said. There's nothing out of order about that.

However, I was curious to find out from Mr. Warawa that it's Liberal policy to dump raw sewage, either on the west coast or on the St. Lawrence River. I don't know where that comes from, and I'd like some clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's an issue of debate.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate Mr. Woodworth's comments about the historic nature of this paragraph, when someone's writing is being quoted, I think it is only in the interests of transparency to disclose that the person is a Conservative lobbyist. Those reading it on the record might think this person has a neutral legitimacy to comment on this.

I also would point out to the member that the repetitive comments about only having eight minutes go back to the fact that the Conservative members were running out the clock on this bill. There were seven amendments, amendments to amendments, and amendments to amendments to amendments on clause 11. I counted. I tracked that. We were going nowhere.

It is that member and his colleagues who created the conditions that required us to move on with this bill or we would spend two years on it. Having this committee's work tied up hour after hour with repetitive comments and amendments to amendments to frustrate this NDP bill is not in the interests of the Canadian public.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going off from the original point of order.

Mr. Woodworth, final intervention.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, it is truly regrettable. One of the things that's wrong with this place is that instead of looking at what is said and trying to examine the merits of the ideas presented, we are trying to smear or in some way discredit the authors. If we were dealing with this in a judicial fashion, we would be looking at the ideas and not the authors.

As for amendments, quite frankly I think it's atrocious that the member suggests we'd be two years doing this bill in order to give it a proper hearing and that we would have to be limited to a minute and a half each in order to prevent us from being two years at this bill.

I don't recall any Conservative amendment that wasn't appropriate and wasn't based on trying to meet a real concern with the bill. In fact I don't think there were that many Conservative amendments that caused delay. The vast majority of amendments that have been proposed in relation to this bill have been proposed by opposition members, oddly enough, since it's their bill.

There's only one thing that makes fulsome debate around this table ridiculous and that's the fact that the members opposite shut their minds and don't listen. Maybe that's why they don't care how long we take to express ideas.

I've said enough. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Duncan, on the same point of order--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to jump in, but I'm afraid as it goes on and on I feel compelled to.

I want to clarify for the record why the majority of the members of this committee had to step in to try to constrain this debate. If anybody at this table would like to have a fulsome debate on this bill, it would be me; it is my bill.

But I agree there is a great backlog of work before us, including SARA, which the Conservative members repeatedly say is so important to move forward with. That is part of the reason I voted to constrain the debate. I don't appreciate the insults or suggestions on my taking part in trying to constrain a fair debate on this bill. I think we've had a good toing and froing, and it became very necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I'm going to rule on the original point of order and subsequent issues that were raised. Ms. Murray is fair in debating the comments and issues brought forward in Mr. Sopuck's intervention, so it is in order.

When we look back on the debate, and if you go through the blues, every member of this committee, regardless of political affiliation, was talking at length on the various amendments and subamendments. We have amendments and subamendments coming from all parties. I wouldn't single out any party, when all members were vigorously involved in the debate and in the drafting process of the bill. It's their due consideration of it at this report stage.

Anyway, let's continue on.

Ms. Murray, you have a minute and--

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the comments of Mr. Warawa, which can only be described as drive-by smears, if Mr. Warawa wants to bring out completely unrelated issues as insults and attacks on both me and Mr. Scarpaleggia, I think it is appropriate that we have either a chance to comment on those drive-by smears or Mr. Warawa should withdraw them.