Evidence of meeting #48 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 jurisdiction.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You can't go back and undo the bill. You have to do it here. And since we didn't change the term “entities” in any way, shape, or form in the bill—actually, we deleted it when deleting clause 12—it would be tough to be admissible.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So we cannot propose an amendment to “entity”. And that's because we tried it later on in the bill. Is that correct?
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay, but we can propose an amendment in the House.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Yes, okay.
My question to Mr. Woodworth is in relation to his statement that the bill somehow encumbers hydroelectric projects or projects that involve the development of provincial natural resources. And I can see his point. But how would he then view the Fisheries Act, with its prohibitions against polluting or damaging waterways, thereby placing some restrictions on provincial natural resource projects? I just don't understand how he's fine or seems to be fine with the Fisheries Act but not with this act when it comes to impacts on provincial natural resource projects. Should I read into this that he thinks the Fisheries Act should be repealed?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you for that.
We had an interesting debate in the House yesterday, in which the NDP members took the view that closure was a fundamentally non-democratic thing. I challenged them in the House to speak to their colleague on this committee, with a view to reopening the closure issue that the opposition members imposed on this debate.
I've just been placed in the position, Mr. Chair, where Mr. Scarpaleggia has asked a perfectly reasonable question. Not only is it a perfectly reasonable question, but it's also a question that is very important and needs to be understood by this committee. However, as a result of the closure rule imposed by the opposition members on this debate, I cannot answer his question.
It's really too late to have a proper discussion with respect to the rest of this bill. But at the very least, I wonder, Mr. Chair, if you might rule that, since Mr. Scarpaleggia has asked a perfectly reasonable question and has, through you, directed it to me, and it is on such a highly important issue, it be in order for me to be given the time to answer it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
As you know, Mr. Woodworth, I love your interventions and the well-thought-out points you raised. Although interesting, it's not a point of order.
However, even though your time has expired, anything is possible through unanimous consent. I know Mr. Scarpaleggia had a question for you.
Would the committee consent to allow Mr. Woodworth a chance to respond to the question?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I would ask him to be very succinct and to the point, and he'd have to....
NDP
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I ruled that it wasn't a point of order, though. He made a point, but it wasn't a point of order.
As things happen in the House, we often have people stand to speak on points of order that aren't points of order, which are then ruled as not being points of order.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'd like the deference of the chair to speak to the point before I go.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You can take the floor to speak. But is there consent to allow Mr. Woodworth a chance to respond to Mr. Scarpaleggia's question?
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
The importance of the issue is indeed that, for example, the Fisheries Act would become engaged, for example, in an undertaking by Hydro-Québec that would alters waterways, and that therefore might potentially cause significant environmental harm. The power the federal government now has is to consider such situations and to enter into agreements with the provinces, which do contemplate some significant environmental harm for good reasons because of the significant benefits of such a project. However, as we've seen throughout this act, the ability of the federal government to enter into such agreements will now be constrained by the courts. The court will have, under clauses 16 through 19, the ability to order that such agreements be set aside if the court determines that the federal government has acted in a way that contravenes the act and that causes significant environmental harm. Consequently, the court will be in a position to order the agreement set aside and the undertaking remediated.
It just takes all of that federal-provincial decision-making out of the hands of the federal government and the provinces and places it in the hands of a judge. This is a highly significant feature of this act, one which in my view is extremely unfortunate and which justifies not proceeding with this act.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Woodworth mentioned remediation. In fact, under the Fisheries Act there has to be remediation, does there not, if a waterway is damaged?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
But is that according to a judge or to the government? That's the issue.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, for interrupting, but again Mr. Scarpaleggia is following the right chain of thought. The issue is in whose jurisdiction it is and in whose decision-making power it is to—