Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I want to place this as a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Once again we are, in my view, looking at a substantive amendment. As for the question of polluter pays, I'm tempted to use the expression “red herring”, but I don't want to try to surmise Monsieur Bigras' motives. I will say that it's a misplaced argument, in that the phrase “just and consistent” in referencing “just” certainly is ample to allow for the principle of polluter pays, which of course is found elsewhere in the same definition section and elsewhere in the act.

What I believe, knowing the great concern that Monsieur Bigras has to protect provincial rights and in particular to do his very best to make the best of a bad act for the province of Quebec, is that Monsieur Bigras' amendment is really directed toward the issue of “asymmetrical federalism”, to use a term. That is to say that this act might apply differently in one province than it would in another province. This is certainly something that changes the tenor of the act. Certainly my comments regarding the impact of this act as we debated it on the distribution of powers between provinces and federal government were all based on the principles seen here, which were that these burdens would fall equally on all provinces.

So now to be told that those arguments I made at that time will no longer apply, because we are going to incorporate a notion of asymmetrical federalism by deleting the reference to consistent distribution of environmental benefits, certainly makes a lot of our debate over the impact of this on provincial governments somewhat beside the point.

So I believe it is a substantive amendment and one that is not related to any previous amendment in the act. I believe, in fact, that it exceeds the scope of the act that was sent to us by the House, and which in fact did not contain any hint of asymmetrical federalism or any hint that burdens would not be shared both justly and consistently.

For those reasons, I ask you to rule this amendment out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to rule it as admissible, and although you've outlined some of what you believe Mr. Bigras' motives are, I believe he is looking for clarity within the act and looking to bring some more consistency into the definitions with regard to what some of the other clauses alluded to further on in the act.

We're going to allow it to stand, but you're definitely free to raise that in your debate.

Are there any comments?

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand what Mr. Woodworth has explained to us. He would like the environmental burden, so, for example, the environmental costs of a particularly polluting industry, be shared consistently among all Canadians.

But, in reality, when there is an industrial sector present or when a province makes strategic choices, we cannot, under the guise of environmental justice, want to divide up the costs of its choices to all provinces and Canadians. A principle must apply at any given time. When we make economic choices, we must take into account the consequences and cost of those choices.

As I read it, the burden is clear. The principle of environmental justice is the "principle that there should be a just and consistent distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among Canadians".

If that was the case, it would mean that the people in Newfoundland should pay for the environmental damage and costs created by operating the oil sands. Fairness is one thing. But consistency of the burden goes against the recognized fundamental principle, the polluter pays principle. If the people in Newfoundland want to cover the environmental costs created by operating the oil sands out west, that's their choice, but it certainly isn't Quebec's.

We do not believe that this principle of environmental justice should take into account the consistency of the burden.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Just listening to Mr. Bigras' comments, it occurs to me—not that I'm an expert in translation or in the French language—that the word uniforme has a different meaning from the word “consistent”. In English, you can be consistent with a principle, which would not apply a uniform fardeau across the different provinces.

In my understanding of the word uniforme, I would agree with this amendment; however, the word “consistent” I don't have a problem with, because consistency is not the same as uniformity. You could have non-uniformity that could be consistent with certain underlying rationale or criteria.

I don't know if there are any other comments about a potentially better word than uniforme, but if that's the word, I would support this amendment of removing that phrase.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't catching that in the French it's different. I agree that this is not saying the same thing. So for that reason, unless we can come up with a word to satisfy Mr. Bigras, I'm fine with simply taking it out.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just having a bit of difficulty finding the word in the French version. Could someone assist me as to what page this French version of this principle of environmental justice is found on?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It appears earlier, at the bottom of page 4, line 32.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Where is it?

It says "principe de prudence". Is that it?

No, it's where it mentions "justice environmental".

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

BQ-3 is on line 32.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, I found it.

I think that Ms. Murray's comments are well placed, but this simply points out to perhaps an issue in the translation of the document. We would benefit, perhaps, from knowing what is a more accurate French definition of the word “consistent”, rather than uniforme, one that would capture the sentiment that Ms. Murray has expressed. I think the difficulty is—to follow up on what Ms. Murray has said—that if one simply jettisons the notion of consistency, one is opening the door to inconsistency, and inconsistency in the application of the principles, to paraphrase somewhat what Ms. Murray has said.

That would be a shame, in that while consistency doesn't necessarily mean uniformity, consistency does mean that we are treating people equitably, so it would be a shame to lose that word. In fact, as I speak, I wonder if the word “equitable” might be a better choice than the word “consistent”. But be that as it may, it would be a shame to lose that principle from this section of the bill.

That is my submission.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You could always move that as an amendment after we deal with this. You can move to insert those words.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Bigras is pointing out to me that the French translation of “just” seems to be equitable. I think there is still meaning in the English word “equitable” or “consistent”, which says that in the end these principles should be applied in the same manner to everyone consistently.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can move that amendment to the English version.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm not proposing to do that, because I have to assume that the French definition of the word equitable must be pretty close to equitable, and then we'd be left with the words “equitable” and “equitable” in the French version. I'm not going to propose that, but I would like, if we could maintain—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

If you wish to have equitable treatment between the French and English version, you may want to put “equitable”—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would like the translators to find an appropriate but different translation of the word “consistent”, rather than the French word uniforme.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. Are there further comments?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We'll now go to BQ-4.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Amendment BQ-4 reads as follows:

That Bill C-469, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 5 the following: "'resident of Canada' means a Canadian citizen or permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act."

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras, you wish to speak to it?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, we had a number of discussions while we were studying this bill to determine who could take action before the Federal Court or another court.

In my opinion, there is a fundamental principle to clarify who these residents are who can take action in court or elsewhere. So we believe that the term "resident" must be limited to two things: Canadian citizens and permanent residents, within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As a result, we would limit the scope of the act. It would be limited to Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Woodworth has a point of order.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I might as well put it on the record, Mr. Chair—although your rulings have been running in a different direction—that I cannot see how we can possibly consider that reducing the ambit of the word “resident” to exclude certain persons now is not a substantive change to the act. The act as it came to us included residents, in my submission, whether they were Canadian citizens or permanent residents or non-permanent residents.

Now, Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to remove from certain residents of Canada all the supposed rights that are guaranteed in the act. How can that not be a substantive amendment? If it is a substantive amendment, where is the amendment to some other provision that justifies it, and how does it not fundamentally change the nature of the act and therefore exceed the scope of the act?

Once again, I ask you to rule this amendment out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to rule that it is admissible. As you know, throughout the bill we talk about a “resident of Canada”. I'm just looking at one page here; it is said in clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Almost every clause on those few pages start off with “any resident of Canada”.

We're providing clarity, just as we did with the acceptance of Ms. Duncan's bill on aboriginal lands.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Pardon me for being argumentative, Mr. Chair, but that is precisely my point, that when we considered this bill throughout, we considered it based on the definition of “resident”, which was in paragraph 2. The reality is that the....

I'm sorry. There is no definition. My apologies.