Evidence of meeting #52 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
My question is again for the experts. I take Mr. Dechert's point that many environmental bills, I guess all environmental bills now, by virtue of the EEA would be reviewed every 10 years. Would that include SARA, the Species At Risk Act?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I'm not sure about that. Perhaps the officials can answer.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I take Mr. Dechert's point that the International River Improvements Act is to be reviewed every 10 years. Assuming there is a conflict between this bill's requirement to have it reviewed every five years and the clause in the International River Improvements Act to be reviewed every 10 years, and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to be reviewed every 10 years, if there's a conflict, could this not supersede the requirements of the other acts?
In other words, we go with the five years, we review the whole act in five years even though the International River Improvements Act requires a review every 10 years. Could this not trump that?
My other question has to do with timing. If the International River Improvements Act is to be reviewed every 10 years, that would be 10 years from when, and this is five years from when?
I'm not clear on what it all means. If it's possible that the five-year review of this trumps other considerations and this whole bill could be reviewed in five years, then I would have to agree with Mr. Dewar that this is a very important piece of legislation and deserves a review in the shorter term.
That's really what I'm trying to understand. I understand Mr. Dechert's point. We want legislation to be consistent, but I'm just not sure what's possible.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
If I could clarify my point, Mr. Chair, which is if you read proposed section 42 as it's set out in the bill, it's a review of proposed sections 24 to 41 of the act, I believe, after 10 years. That's just those sections of the act, not the whole piece of legislation. That's the point I was making. You would have a situation where the government is required to review part of a statute, not the whole statute, in five years, and then the rest of the statute in 10 years. That's inconsistent.
If it's NDP policy that statutes be reviewed every five years, that's a policy they may wish to put forward, but I would suggest they put that forward in a separate bill. The purpose of this bill, as we've been discussing here today, is environmental protection. We don't want to disturb the other elements of this legislation that have been properly debated in previous Parliaments and are there for a reason. It wouldn't make sense to come up with a new review period for some sections of these statutes when there is a standard that is set in other legislation.
Perhaps we could hear from the officials on this point.
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I'll start by repeating that I think the important clarification Mr. Dechert provided here is that proposed section 42 in the bill focuses only on a review of the enforcement-related provisions of the bill, proposed sections 24 to 41. This provision is a mirror of the provision that was introduced in the Environmental Enforcement Act three years ago, which required precisely the same 10-year review of the new enforcement provisions that were introduced by the Environmental Enforcement Act into nine other environmental statutes.
We have nine statutes, including the International River Improvements Act, not including the Species At Risk Act, that now have a requirement that their enforcement provisions be reviewed every 10 years. Some of those statutes also have another provision that calls for a review of the entire act, but that's only the case for two or three environmental statutes at this point in time.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I just want to further clarify that notwithstanding the government's argument here, there is already a schedule for a 10-year review. On this provision that the bill has right now, is it written such that it would be in sequence with the review, or is this going to be when the bill is brought into force?
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
This provision would essentially add this 10-year review requirement to the IBWTA. I think we already have this provision for the IRIA. It would add this provision and it would be triggered on the date that the section comes into force, as it says. It wouldn't be concurrent with the other 10-year reviews. It would be 10 years from the time that this provision comes into force, which presumably would be, if this bill passes, upon royal assent.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Chair, I think that's very important, in light of the argument that was attempted by the government. The way this is, if passed and proclaimed, it will start a new schedule separate from the argument that Mr. Dechert made. I'm simply saying that's great, let's do that, but let's have a five-year review, which is in keeping with the practice of new legislation. That's why I think a five-year review makes sense. I don't think it creates any inconsistencies and I think that's a cogent reason for supporting it.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Is there any other discussion? Then I will call the question on the proposed amendment, NDP-3.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 13)
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're going to move to government amendment G-2. I will turn it over to Mr. Dechert to propose that and to speak to it.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
We're talking about the definition of “boundary waters” in clause 13. The clause proposes amending section 2 so that “transboundary waters” would have the same meaning as in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
To go back to the changes that were made to clause 14, which is why I wanted to deal with this out of order, that drafting convention requires amendments to the International River Improvements Act. The first is to change the definitions of “boundary waters” and “transboundary waters” to make them consistent.
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we could ask the officials to give us some guidance on this point.
October 30th, 2012 / 9:35 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I believe Mr. Dechert has referred to two amendments to clause 13. The first would simply amend the definition of international river improvement and add the single word “pipeline”. The purpose of that amendment would be to clarify that a pipeline would constitute an improvement for the purpose of the International River Improvements Act. Thus, the pipeline would require a licence in the same way that a dam or a canal or reservoir, etc. would. We believe that this is implicit in the definition but there is no harm in clarifying this fact.
That's the first amendment.
I apologize. I didn't completely follow things. Did you also move the second amendment? Do you need me to speak to that?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
My notes suggested that they should be dealt with together. Maybe I'm misreading them. If not, then we can just deal with this first amendment.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We'll deal with the first one. We'll get to the next one very shortly.
Is there any other discussion on that?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 14)
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're now going to move to clause 14, and amendment G-3. I'll ask everyone to turn to G-3, and I will ask Mr. Dechert to speak to that.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
The first change, Mr. Chair, makes it clear that the prohibition is for the purposes of potential risk through environmental harm resulting from a loss of water.
The second change avoids redundancy in new prohibitions introduced by Bill C-383. The amendment accomplishes this by replacing the words “non-boundary or boundary waters” in clause 14 with terminology that is consistent with that proposed in clause 4 of the bill for the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Clause 4 of the bill amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of boundary and transboundary waters and the taking of that water outside the Canadian portion of the water basin.
To avoid redundancy, the new prohibition in the International River Improvements Act should also focus on linking of all waters not covered by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, in other words, all waters other than transboundary and boundary waters. To accomplish that, we are proposing to amend clause 14 to use the phrase “neither boundary waters nor transboundary waters” to replace the current language, which is “non-boundary or boundary waters”. It's adding the transboundary part. This amendment would eliminate the redundancy between the two acts.
The third and final proposed change in clause 14 clarifies that the new prohibition applies only to an improvement that increases the annual flow of an international river at the border. This clarification is necessary to respect provincial jurisdiction in water management, while still ensuring that international rivers are not used as a conveyance to transfer additional water across the international boundary.
Perhaps we could ask the officials to clarify those amendments again.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dechert described three amendments. I'll speak to them in a slightly different sequence, if I may.
The first amendment would clarify the purpose of the new prohibition in the International River Improvements Act, precisely the same new purpose that the committee just agreed to add to the IBWTA prohibition, so it's having the same purpose: focused on environmental harm associated with the prohibitions in both acts. That's the rationale for the first amendment.
The next amendment—I'm going in ease of description here—would clarify that the prohibition in the International River Improvements Act applies to activities that have the effect of increasing the flow of an international river at the border. There are some activities that provinces might undertake on an international river that might affect the flow of that river within the province, within Canada, for example, pooling a river to facilitate hydroelectric activity.
The purpose of the clarification is to say that the focus of this prohibition is on preventing activities that would result in an increase in flow across the border. We're not trying to interfere with this prohibition, with the jurisdiction of provinces to alter water flow within their boundaries. That provision is just a clarification of the intention of that prohibition.
Is there a question on that? Do you want me to stop?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
This is very interesting, because what we're saying here, as I understand it, is that it will be okay for a province to pool water for a hydroelectric dam even if there are environmental consequences. We're sort of contradicting the fact that we're trying to minimize environmental consequences. Then we're saying, well, let's go to the border, and if you're increasing the flow at the border, which would obviously be for the purpose of exporting water, that would be prohibited.
On the one hand we're contradicting our desire to minimize environmental consequences, and on the other hand, it seems again like a trade bill, if you follow me. I'd be interested in your comments on that.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, I think it's important to emphasize that neither of these statutes is designed to provide comprehensive environmental protection associated with waters in Canada.
Jurisdiction over waters in Canada is shared federally and provincially. Provincial governments have considerable jurisdiction over the management of water within their own territories. The federal government asserts its jurisdiction over those waters in a variety of ways, not just through these two statutes but also, for example, through environmental assessment requirements, through the Fisheries Act, and other statutes. These are not the only two statutes associated with environmental impacts of water quantity and water flow in Canada.
Similarly, the amendments proposed in Mr. Miller's bill and the amendments proposed by the government through Mr. Dechert are not intended to expand the environmental scope of these two statutes. They're simply intended to clarify and make effective the specific focus of these two new prohibitions, which are focused on avoiding the potential environmental impact of increasing the flow of water out of Canada into the United States. Through these amendments we're only focusing on that particular environmental impact.
As to the trade implications, again I'll come back to the first amendment that we discussed both for the IBWTA and the IRIA. The primary focus of the prohibition is on preventing that environmental risk as opposed to addressing or regulating international trade in some way.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative