Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to try to put all of our discussions into perspective.
We haven't really engaged in much consensus on this bill, but let me begin by saying that I hope there is a consensus that this bill is very revolutionary, that it does introduce into our law a number of new lawsuits. It introduces into our law any number of new concepts: for example, the concept of intergenerational equity, the concept of a principle of environmental justice, even in a certain way the concept of public trust, although it's not entirely new, certainly, given a different twist in this legislation from has been in the law previously.
So this will be a revolutionary new way of effecting environmental policy in Canada. And I don't say that to be complimentary to the mover of the bill, but just to point out a fact that, goodness gracious, we are enacting the first substantive amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. After 50 years of that iconic legislation being a benchmark in Canada, this bill is going to include a substantive amendment to it. So I hope we can all agree that this is a revolutionary change to Canadian law and environmental policy.
Some people are saying bravo.
I ask why we are doing this. What is our purpose? What need are we trying to address with this revolutionary overhaul of Canadian environmental law and policy? It's been stated by Ms. Duncan that, well, judicial review already occurs. Well, in one way she's right, but in another way she's overlooking what this bill does to judicial review.
Certainly judicial review already occurs, but it occurs in a balanced way, subject to a variety of checks and balances--I think someone used that phrase earlier--that are not found in this act. Indeed, our law already places a high premium on protecting the environment and it already gives citizens the right to participate in environmental policy. In fact, it already does a number of things that this bill purports to do.
In fact, in my experience the only citizens whose right to speak has been cut off, to refer to Mr. Ouellet's point earlier, are those who are opponents of this bill, because we have been prevented from speaking. We have been refused in this committee to hear additional witnesses. The opponents of this bill are the ones whose right to speak has been cut off.
In fact, our law in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, for example, already allows a lawsuit to proceed in relation to environmental contraventions; however, it's very cautious and circumscribed, right? And among other things, it first requires the government an opportunity to investigate and resolve the issue in the same way that the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights does.
So what's wrong with that? What complaints have we heard? Well, we've heard that it doesn't allow enough lawsuits. It discourages lawsuits. We've also heard from the very same witness that it's a good thing for the government to try to get in in advance of a lawsuit and mediate and investigate and resolve issues. But that very sensible circumscription is omitted from this bill.
In other ways this bill omits sensible circumscriptions. For example, the notion that to have standing one should have a direct interest in the matter that is being litigated has been tossed out by this bill. Anyone, no matter where they live or what interest they may have in a legal sense, is entitled to litigate under this bill.
This bill duplicates things that are already being done. We already have a petitions process that will look after a request for investigation. We already have the justice department that scrutinizes bills to ensure that they comply with the charter. Now the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development will also be doing that.
So I would characterize this bill as one that overreaches. If we were to go back and examine what the real complaints are here, is the whistleblower protection that we've enacted into Canadian law really inadequate? Does it leave out an important sector that should receive whistleblower protection? Well, if we were to examine that, as a responsible committee would, we might come up with some reasonable, implementable, and non-duplicative way of amending the existing law to remedy such a deficiency. That's the way a proper legislature should proceed; that's the way a proper legislative committee should proceed.
But simply papering over all of the existing processes that are intended to allow everyone's interest to be addressed and to impose overreaching and revolutionary solutions such as this, I have to ask, why are we doing it?
As Ms. Duncan so aptly put it in response to a question from the chair, even she can't predetermine what the results of a court challenge under this act will be.
In fact, farmers among us would say that if we adopt this bill, we're buying a pig in a poke. We really don't know what the results will be and where the courts will take this. We only know that we are transferring large areas of jurisdiction from cautious governmental agreement and regulation into the hands of the courts. Most problematically, in paragraph 19(1)(f), the courts will be empowered to “order the defendant to take specified preventative measures” if a judge determines that the government, i.e., the defendant, has somehow failed in its as yet uncircumscribed obligation to act as trustee of the environment. This is a wide-open door, and it behoves us not to enact revolutionary legislation of that nature unless there is a clear and pressing need to do so.
While there may be flaws in our existing environmental regime, there is no overall deficiency. We've been on the right track for the last 20 to 30 years. We've been doing good things. We should continue this course in a democratic fashion that hears from all stakeholders and arbitrates among them, rather than pushing it all over to the courts, where things are decided on a “king of the hill” basis, either you've won or you've lost, and there's no room for mediation or compromise. Judges will decide on the basis of winners and losers.
I have to remind committee members that we have to ask ourselves why we are doing this. What is the need we're trying to meet? Why are we overreaching in this fashion?
Quite frankly, none of the evidence suggests any reason, any need that deserves to be met in this revolutionary fashion. So I plead with members to take a step back and not plunge us into this kind of an exercise.