All the opposition parties?
Evidence of meeting #18 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aecl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aecl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
We invite all the opposition parties to take a firm position on this matter. We've had discussions with the people from the parties and this isn't the first time we've discussed this issue. We did it with regard to Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. We went across the country to meet with members of Parliament. We think the only way to resolve this matter is to hold a public debate on the entire issue. That's also what the Conservative government thought before it included this part in the omnibus bill. The Conservative government said it wanted to hold a public debate, but it ultimately put this part in the omnibus bill. So we invite all opposition parties to take a firm stand and to ask or suggest that it be withdrawn.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
The people in your union can be assured of one thing, and that is the unconditional support of the New Democratic Party.
How much time do I have left?
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I'd just like to offer a bit of a wink and a reminder.
I'm going to do it in English so nothing gets lost literally. The translators are superb, but I want this to be understood.
It's a corporate message on behalf of all elected members. I'm saying it with half a smile, Mr. Hazell, and I don't want you take it badly, but I was taught in the first year of law school by a wonderful old judge that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Frankly, to come before a group of elected members to tell us that we're just not up to the task of reading the statute, that it's far too complicated for us, is a bit insulting.
Even though we have our fights on these substantive issues all the time, and you see us sometimes publicly and in the House doing that, that's our job. I think we all do it well, irrespective of the party we're in. I was not only the Minister of the Environment in Quebec, I wrote Quebec's law on sustainable development. I changed Quebec's charter of rights to put in the right to live in a clean environment, respectful of laws and regulations. By the way, one of the first books I published was a 300-page bibliography on the drafting and interpretation of legislative documents, published by the Éditeur officiel du Québec some 30 years ago.
I know how to read a statute. I know how to write a statute. And by the way, I am a contributing member of Ecojustice as well.
I just find that it was a bit cheeky to tell us that we were incapable of reading this statute because it might be a bit too complicated for us, even though I'm on your side when it comes to the environment.
Associate, Ecojustice Canada
Can I respond?
I certainly apologize for any disrespect. I certainly intended none. I certainly didn't intend to impugn the capability of members of this committee to read statutes and interpret them.
The key point I wanted to make is that a seven-year review is required by law to begin next month. It's a parliamentary review. Parliament in its wisdom could ask this committee to do it.
My only suggestion is that the logical place to do that would be with the environment and sustainable development committee. There's a process in place to do a comprehensive review of environmental assessment. Why not ask the body that I would submit is best suited to do that task, to take it on?
I certainly intended no disrespect. I apologize if it came out that way.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Hazell, you didn't need to apologize. I understood completely your intention, that in fact this bill and this segment of the bill is inappropriately in front of the finance committee. It should properly be before the environment committee. That was what you intended, and you did not intend to insult any of us. There's no point making mountains out of molehills here.
I did want to get to some of the substance of the issue. Could you put some flesh on the bones of what this is going to mean? Frankly, we have been told by various groups that there are all kinds of jurisdictions, provincial, federal agencies, and others, and they're falling all over each other doing various environmental assessments, and that this is an attempt to rationalize it and streamline.
It seems to me that in the notes given to us by the Department of Finance, this gives the Minister of the Environment the power to establish the scope of any project in relationship to which an environmental assessment is conducted. I take it that's the core of the objection. What's not clear to me is how that minister would exercise that scope of jurisdiction.
Mr. Lindgren?
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you.
Probably the best way to answer that question is to refer to the Red Chris Mine case itself, where the proponent came forward with a proposal to construct and operate a very large-scale mine. It was so big that it was on the comprehensive study list. The responsible authorities were initially required to do a comprehensive study, which is a very rigorous form of environmental assessment. It includes various opportunities for public review and input.
Somewhere along the way, a project scoping decision was made in the absence of public input, and basically, although the EA was supposed to be looking at the environmental impacts of the mine, the mine and the mill were removed from consideration. So you have an EA that's supposed to be looking at the impacts of the mine, except the scoping decision removed the mine from consideration. That's why the Supreme Court of Canada said that's nuts.
Liberal
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Nobody should. Once Parliament has said that an oil or gas facility or a nuclear facility or a mine facility... If it's on the comprehensive facility list, do a comprehensive study of all the core components and all the related ancillary infrastructure that goes with it. You can't be severing parts you don't want to assess or that might be too contentious.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Am I being overly paranoid by saying that if a very influential mining company got to a minister, it could--how would I say this--limit the review of the proposal?
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
That's exactly what happened in the Red Chris Mine situation, and there is nothing in Bill C-9 that would prevent that from happening again. In fact, proposed subsection 15.1(1) of the bill purports to give the minister that very power. That's exactly what our fear is.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
It is unfettered discretion. And more importantly, it's a discretion that he or she can delegate to a responsible authority, if you read the portion carefully.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
I'm at a loss to understand the rationale for that provision.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
An unfettered discretion in the hands of a minister would necessarily be subject to political considerations. If it were subject to political considerations, it might not necessarily always be subject to environmental considerations. Is that effectively what's being proposed here?
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
What effectively is being proposed is an opportunity to do an end run around the EA process that Parliament says is necessary to fully identify and evaluate environmental impacts before a project goes forward.
Liberal
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
First, I want to publicly note your support for Bill C-300--and I appreciate it--during this past year and a half of battling the forces of evil.
