:
Oh, the motion is. Well, thank you, I appreciate that clarification.
So Ms. Duncan's motion is in order, but ethically.... I don't question her motives, but to me it appears to be in the form of a conflict in that on the one hand it's the responsibility of Parliament to debate this bill, Bill , and to hear from witnesses.
And we should have heard from first nations. We've said that. We've now had a deluge of additional briefings and Ms. Duncan unfortunately doesn't want to hear from them, it appears: doesn't want to hear from first nations and doesn't want to hear from witnesses. This deluge of e-mails and briefings we're getting is again reminding Canadians how bad Bill is.
Chair, the other irony in this, besides the NDP trying to stifle debate and hearing from other Canadians, from other witnesses, is that it's the NDP that stopped SARA, the Species at Risk Act, with the help of opposition members. We had, I believe, a responsibility to do that. My recommendation was that we finish SARA—
:
Chair, what I would like to clarify is that I lament that we are not finishing SARA. I think we had a moral responsibility to finish that, but we haven't. We've moved on to Bill and now I think the record will clearly show that we have opposition members repeatedly interrupting as important points are being made.
We have had interruptions using the tactic of points of order and stall tactics, so it's been quite disheartening, and now we have this motion. To say there should be an allocation of “a maximum of five minutes per recognized political party for debate in relation to consideration of each clause or amendment” is just unrealistic.
has one member, Chair. One member--so what she is proposing that she would get five minutes. Now, on this side of the table, we have me and my four colleagues. We have five members. So she is suggesting that we would share those five minutes. She is suggesting that the Liberals would share their five minutes and the two Bloc members would share their five minutes, but she would have the sole five minutes, because there is only one person, herself, from the NDP. It seems patently unfair and impractical.
If there were a fairer way of dealing with this—for example, if she wanted to say that we limit it to five minutes per individual—I think that would sell around here in the spirit of fairness, if she wants to move things along, but that may not be realistic either. I look forward to hearing from other members around this table on whether or not five minutes would be adequate.
But in the spirit of fairness—and again, I hope this was not a deliberate attempt by the NDP to stifle healthy debate—I would move an amendment to her motion that the five minutes be “per member” instead of “per recognized political party”. That would be my amendment.
I have shared some of our concerns, particularly last meeting's concerns about the development and lens through which that needs to be looked at. I was very concerned that Bill would change all of the good work of Parliament, both in this House and in the Senate, in passing through--with unanimous support--a definition of sustainable development, a strategy, and an act.
What we saw last Thursday, Chair, shockingly, was the NDP voting against the motion in the House and opposing sustainable development. They were the only party that did that.
But I have to give them credit, in that they are being consistent. They want to change the definition of sustainable development through Bill , but they also voted against sustainable development in the House, so there appears to be a plan by the NDP regarding sustainable development or the extinguishment—
I do want to say that I support the amendment that we should be dealing with this on the basis of members rather than parties, but even if the motion were amended in that fashion, I would still oppose the motion. Among other things, I don't think that five minutes is an adequate period of time, but I'll reserve those comments.
I would like first of all to mention that, as I understand the committee structure, although clearly we try to maintain solidarity with our caucus colleagues, we are here as individuals. Although we might try to work out how we're going to do things, it's extremely problematic to sit down and figure out that person A is going to speak to this point, person B to that point, and person C to this point.
In point of fact, we all have different ways of expressing ourselves, and we all have a valuable contribution to bring, in my opinion. It is, in a way, an infringement upon our rights as members that we should be forced by the motion before us, without the amendment, to be speaking as a bloc. In fact, there are those who would say that we shouldn't even always vote as a bloc. To have to speak as a bloc is nearly impossible.
I also want to say that there is some relevance here to what happened in the House regarding Bill . It may be a good illustration of how sometimes parties and people don't apply themselves consistently.
I recall the closing hour of debate on Bill S-216. Quite frankly, the NDP member spent a great deal of time, instead of speaking about Bill S-216, speaking about Bill , and clearly wasn't even adhering to even the smallest modicum of relevance in that debate, but was simply talking, I suppose, to fill time or maybe to hear her voice. I won't speculate as to her motives, but in any event it was to me quite distressing, as the mover of Bill S-216, to hear time being used on that debate to talk about Bill C-311. Of course, then it was necessary for me to respond to those comments on Bill C-311, and it just derailed the whole debate.
In the interest of maintaining our rights and privileges as individual members, I think we should be dealing with this on a per member basis.
The other thing I'd like to say, Mr. Chair, is that it has occurred to me from time to time that sometimes members--and I won't point the finger at just the opposition--think debate is unnecessary because they come to a table like this with their minds made up. Sometimes I'm as guilty as anyone of coming in with my mind made up.
Even if we have our minds made up, Mr. Chair, I think it still behooves us to stop, listen, let others speak, and hear what they have to say. Who knows? Some minor miracle may occur and we might change our mind along the way. If we come at it from the point of view that our minds are made up, well of course, then, even spending 60 seconds a person to let your opponent speak is too much, because we already know what we're going to do and we might as well move right to it.
In any event, I mentioned that even given the current amendment, I would not be able to support this motion. Quite frankly, I find the motion offensive generally. In an effort to try to improve it a little bit, I would like to propose a subamendment to the existing amendment that is on the floor, and that is to lengthen the time to 10 minutes per person.
May I speak to that amendment, Mr. Chair?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I must say that I am shocked by the motion on the table. Although the motion has been made by the New Democratic Party, it seems totally undemocratic and totally irresponsible to me, removing as it does the right of members of this committee to speak.
As a Quebecker, I can provide a very specific example. You will remember that, in his testimony at one of the first sessions, William Amos, from the University of Ottawa, raised some major problems with two clauses of Bill . First, he mentioned clause 23, which could expose Hydro-Québec to lawsuits. The same witness also said that clause 16 of the proposed federal bill would allow injunctions to be brought against Hydro-Québec's activities.
Mr. Chair, do you think it makes sense to have no more than a minute to speak to amendments that are so significant and so fundamental that they are shaking the foundations of Canadian environmental law? I see that as quite irresponsible and, frankly, I have to say that members would appear completely ridiculous.
Clearly, I support Mr. Warawa's proposed amendment, not only because it is important for all members to have their say, but also because it is important to study this motion in the context of the time that members will be allowed to give their opinion on other motions to come.
I have some other comments. Some remarks have suggested that members on this side do not trust industry. I have to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. We have a good deal of trust in industry. We are studying this bill with an open mind.
For example, we could mention the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec, CPEQ. It was founded in 1992 by representatives of the major industrial and business sectors in Quebec. CPEQ's mission is to represent its members' interests on environmental and sustainable development matters…
I think this notice of motion reflects the point that this is an important bill. There needs to be real discussion to get it right. No member around this table is ignoring the importance of the perspective of the business community, the perspective of the environmental community, or the public. I think we want to get it right so that this is a good piece of public policy. But the reason this motion was required is that this hasn't been the tenor of the debate from the Conservative side, frankly.
I pointed it out in the last meeting. There were five members who were repeating the same points that their colleagues had just made from the same talking papers, again and again and again and again taking up major amounts of time without saying anything very different from each other. There was also a disrespectful tenor to the commentary, which required other members to bring forward points of order for rulings on what were experienced as disrespectful comments.
As Ms. Duncan said, this motion is to reflect that this committee has other points of business it wants to consider. When the Conservative members' use of a plethora of procedural tactics to frustrate getting to clause-by-clause debate failed, thus absorbing hours of this committee's time, then the Conservative members started to have a not-to-the-point discussion on clause 3. Those kinds of tactics are why we need this motion to have a limit to the timed discussion.
On clause 3, for example, and the discussion by Mr. Warawa about the principle of sustainable development, those would have been very appropriate points to make in clauses 11, 12 or 13 on whether the substance of those clauses really adheres to this principle. Or it could have been a discussion about whether that principle should or shouldn't be in there, but in fact the member argued that we need the principle of sustainable development because otherwise this bill is too much about the environment, so in fact he was arguing for that principle being a principle in the bill.
He then went on for another 20 minutes on things that were completely not to the point of whether that principle should be in there or not. He'd already stated we need the principle of sustainable development with the economic, social, and environmental aspects because of his fears of the bill being one-sided. It was absorbing a big chunk of a meeting on something that was misplaced, and it was experienced by members on this side as a deliberate attempt to frustrate progress on this debate. That's why we need to limit the time.
I'm going to argue that five minutes per party may not be appropriate. I think that having a per-person time period is a more appropriate way to go.
But when I hear the word “anti-democratic” with respect to putting on some limits so we can get through the substance of our debate and onto other business and do the best possible job, as opposed to what we've been experiencing with the frustration of the ring around the rosy of “black is white, no, white is black” coming from the Conservative members.... We need a way to move on. I support there being a time limit.
Thank you.
:
Well, Mr. Chair, I won't be able to say what I really wanted to say, which is that we should call the vote, since nobody else had their hand up, but....
I have observed the workings of this committee, as has everyone else around this table, and as has the public, because these proceedings are occurring in public. We have a lot on our plate. We have a lot of things that various members of the committee are recommending should come before this committee that we don't have a hope now of getting into probably even in 2011. I find that really regrettable.
I have put forward what I thought was a constructive proposal. I'm not averse to other people's proposals, but I am the one who put forward a proposal that seemed amenable to a number of people at the time. I think that if all members of this committee were really sincere that they wanted to move on and expedite the review, they would move on and simply call the vote on the amendment.
I am willing to give up time allotted to me to discuss my own bill in order to move on to other matters. It's very clear that the Conservative members are not going to vote for this bill in the House—it's pretty clear where they stand on this bill—so the objective of dragging out the discussion is simply dragging out the discussion.
I am bending over backwards to try to expedite what I think could be a constructive review of the bill. A number of members have tabled amendments that I think are very constructive, and I look forward to moving on and discussing those.
I'm putting that forward, and if one of the other members who put their hand up wishes to follow on my suggestion, or withdraw their question, I would welcome to that.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm somewhat on the horns of a dilemma because, quite frankly, I enjoy and appreciate listening to Ms. Murray's interventions. Whether or not I agree with them, I think she expresses herself clearly, and actually, I find that she and I at least speak the same language.
The problem is that when Ms. Murray says things that I believe are not accurate or are not well placed, I have an option. I can just sit here and take it silently, or I can speak up and try to make the point that she may not be perceiving things at least the way I do, if not, perhaps, correctly. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think it's my duty as a legislator and a conscientious member of Parliament to speak up and see if we can have a dialogue. And who knows? Maybe we can try to achieve some understanding, if not today, then over time.
Just to begin with, to give you an elementary example, I know that it was not deliberate of Ms. Murray to do this, but in point of fact, when speaking to the amendment that is before us, she spent most of her time talking about the main motion before--I think--she finally said that she would support the amendment and that it might be appropriate to do this on a per-member basis rather than a per-party basis. Now, that point she could have made in 60 seconds. The rest was good to hear, but it really didn't have to do with the amendment. It had to do with the main motion.
Now, we all do that, and it's very difficult to discipline ourselves not to mix things up in that way. I'm not trying to be too critical, but I'm saying that this is an example of why we need a little bit of leeway in our discussions.
Regarding Ms. Murray's suggestion that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about a motion limiting debate to five minutes per party as being undemocratic, I'd like to quote from former Speaker Fraser. These are comments he made on April 14, 1987, and I think this quote is germane. I'm honestly not trying to elongate things. He said:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
So we might disagree about how long it takes to make reasonable points, but I don't think I would disagree with Speaker Fraser that it's a democratic thing to give people reasonable time. Conversely, if we think that five minutes per party is not reasonable time, I don't think it's wrong or inappropriate to say that it is an undemocratic measure.
With respect to Ms. Murray's comments that the Conservatives have raised a plethora of procedural tactics, quite frankly, you know, if Ms. Murray wanted to say that the Conservatives have taken too long to explain their point of view, that would be a legitimate thing to say, but I can't think of a single procedural tactic that the Conservatives have raised. We had a motion at the outset to set aside the debate on this whole bill, and that seems like an appropriate time to make such a motion. And then along the way, Mr. Calkins moved a motion that we should hear from more witnesses, but I don't think one can say that these are procedural tactics.
What I would describe as procedural tactics are the continued points of order that have come not just from the NDP member but from other parties as well. I would include the heckling that has gone on from across the table here as a procedural tactic to shut down debate. I would include the procedural tactic of adjourning debate. I have been here two years. I've never seen that done, and I'm sure that the opposition must have a handbook out there on procedural tactics to shut down debate.
So my point of view is completely different from that of Ms. Murray. I think it has been the opposition, not the Conservatives members, who have been adopting tactics.
By the way, when I say that, I realize that I'm guilty of a misstatement, and it's one that I often dislike when it's applied to me. I shouldn't really say “the opposition”. I should say “some members of”. Even if Ms. Murray wanted to say that some members of the Conservative Party have done this or that, that to me would be a more respectful way of putting it than to put everybody together in the same basket, because we are all here as individuals, and some of us, me included, I hope, are genuinely trying to have a debate.
Along the same lines, on Ms. Murray's comments about disrespect, if there is disrespect shown at this table, it certainly is not limited to the Conservative Party. There is plenty of that going around. I have to tell you that from my perspective on this side of the table, it is mainly coming from opposite me, but not from every member opposite me.
I just wanted to make those points in response to what Ms. Murray had to say.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will not take as much time as my government colleagues, but I can tell you that what we are hearing today is far from helpful.
As Mr. Warawa saw fit to quote from his encyclopedia, let me quote in turn from my dictionary. The definition of “dilatory“ is “describes an action intended to delay the outcome of a trial or the passage of a piece of legislation…“.
That is exactly why we have Ms. Duncan's motion before us today. Mr. Warawa is a gentleman, as, generally, all hon. members are. The problem is that those hon. members are falling in line with their party's petty strategy, as we have seen in recent sessions. This committee of Parliament is becoming less a forum for debate and change and more a partisan tool.
For two sessions—Mr. Benoît was not here to comment on the other sessions—Mr. Warawa has monopolized the time in order to talk about one single clause. if that does not meet the dictionary definition of “dilatory“ that I just quoted, I don't know what does.
In my opinion, each party's time must be limited. We want to work on, and possibly amend, the bill. The way to move the work forward is to limit the time.
In the last two years, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has in fact been noted for its endless study of the matters referred to it. The tar sands study and the Species at Risk Act are examples, and we are now doing the same thing with Bill . And it's not the opposition that has decided to delay our work.
So I think we have to limit the time provided to each political party. That is why we are going to support Ms. Duncan's motion.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The place where I will begin is to mention that there are I think around 28 clauses in this bill, or something in that order, and they are not all equal. Clause 3, for example, is nine lines long, but it is preceded by a rather controversial and dangerous preamble, and it contains five very meaty concepts, some of which have never been seen before in Canadian law. I would find five minutes entirely insufficient to discuss that clause.
Then, when we address clause 2, for example, it actually defines 16 terms. As compared with the nine lines in clause 3, it is 152 lines long and packed full of concepts that in many cases are new to Canadian law. It seems to me beyond belief that we would, at any point, be able to have a discussion of these kinds of important, novel—extraordinarily novel—provisions in the space of 20 minutes and, indeed, to have any give-and-take or back and forth or potential for coming to any conclusions. It would be enormously difficult.
We might compare that with clause 7, which is only two lines long, which of course would probably not even require five minutes of debate.
I guess what I'm trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate, in the first place, to deal with a bill of this nature. I think we have to take our responsibilities seriously as members of Parliament, and I just can't conceive how some of these matters could be debated in five minutes.
I would like to say a little more about the motion at large, but rather than doing so, I will simply focus on the point I've raised at the outset: that five minutes per party are simply not feasible for discussing matters as important, as weighty, as complicated, and as novel as those contained in this bill. So I would like move an amendment to the motion. I'll put it as succinctly as I can and move that we replace the words “five minutes per recognized political party” with the words “10 minutes per member”.
My comments to this point, I will apply in support of that motion.
:
Mr. Chair, I will show you that I am perfectly capable of making my point in two minutes.
I am astounded to see that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are preventing the members of this committee from expressing their opinion on such an important bill.
In fact, it directly affects 280,000 jobs, and 200 companies in Quebec and 26 associations are concerned by the vague nature of some provisions in the bill before us, by the excessive powers given to the courts and by the major legal uncertainly which may well be the result.
Mr. Chair, it is important for us to take the time we need and not to rush through such an important task. Of course I will be supporting Mr. Woodworth's motion, but I am appealing to members' common sense. Earth to the hon. members opposite! This bill has important consequences and this is not the time to be playing administrative games, as you might say.
Rather, it is the time to come to grips with the issue and the time for members to be able to speak on each of the clauses, especially the ones that are devastating and harmful in the extreme, in the words of the Canadian Hydropower Association.
So it is really important for members to show some guts, you might say, and demand to be properly heard on a bill of such significance.
Thank you.
I support this amendment to the motion, although again I don't know whether I would support the motion as amended. There's still the issue of allocating time, but we'll speak to that later.
It seems to me that this amendment would at least bring the debate somewhat into line with the way things happen in the House of Commons. Even when time allocation is brought in place in the House of Commons, I believe the normal speaking rotations apply. From my memory and knowledge, that's the case.
The speaking allocations in the House in fact are based on the number of members per party in the House, so they roughly reflect the per member presence in the House. Yet without this amendment, we'd have something quite different here at committee. All of a sudden you would have at committee a situation where each party is treated as equal.
Again on this proposed amendment, I just wonder how the Bloc members or the Liberal members could go back to their constituents and say that they agreed to a motion that would give the three of them the same speaking time as one member of the New Democratic Party, and three in the case of the Liberal Party, especially on an issue as important as an environmental issue. I think they'd have a hard time explaining that to their constituents.
When they're considering whether or not to support this amendment, I think they should really consider that and reflect upon how they may or may not be able to defend their actions here to their constituents. I really think they ought to take some time and think about that.
Certainly, if I were to go to my constituents at election time and say that when it came to this important environmental discussion, I agreed to a motion that gave me maybe one-sixth the speaking time of the NDP member, my constituents would be very unhappy about it. It's something that in good conscience I couldn't support and that in good conscience my constituents would question me on. I really wonder whether I'd be their MP if I were to support this kind of position.
Now the members across are laughing--some of them, not all. I don't want to reflect.... They know that issues dealt with at committee quite often never get back to our constituents, but even if that were the case, I still think they should really reflect on the fairness of this and how they would explain it should it get back to their constituents.
Mr. Chair, I would just say that I support this amendment, but I'd still have the same problem I had with the last amendment. I still don't see how I could support the motion even if it were amended in this fashion. I'll certainly consider it. I'll listen to the debate on this amendment and reach a conclusion after I hear the debate.
As I was contemplating this issue, I realized that some of the comments I would like to make regarding the motion apply to the amendment also. I got a little concerned in thinking about it in that if I didn't put my hand up and make them now, in fact, there might be some procedural tactic employed to shut down debate on the motion later, and I won't get my chance to make these comments.
So because my comments really apply overall to the question of how much time we should spend debating Bill , I'm going to make them now.
I'll mention that I've now sat on this committee for well over two lovely and enjoyable years, and I cannot think of any time in the last two years or so when we have been faced with a motion like this to shut down and limit debate.
Historically, we have had a lot of lengthy debates on this committee. There were many times when I might have wished that I could shut down debate, but it would never have occurred to me to do that, because I do respect the right of members and in fact the duty of members to speak their mind. In fact, I don't think that in the two years that I've sat on this committee I have ever seen a Conservative member move for a limitation of debate.
I think the question has to be asked: why now? Why, after two years of considering a great many important bills, like Bill --not important because I agreed with it, but important because of the consequences it would have inflicted on our country--like the SARA study, and like the oil sands and water study? During the hours and hours we spent debating those things, never once did anybody suggest that we should limit our comments, presumably because we all wanted to have a full and fair debate that the public could listen in on. I think that's the way that we should operate.
So why now would the NDP member want to stop debate on her bill? Is it because she doesn't want people to know how bad this bill really is? Is it because she doesn't want some of the problems that are inherent in this bill to be exposed to the light? We have had literally pages and pages of submissions. We have had hours and hours of testimony. Why would the NDP member want to straitjacket our debate at this time, rather than letting people express themselves?
Even when we don't agree with ideas, and in fact especially when we don't agree with ideas, we should let them be heard and let people decide for themselves. If you don't, if you try to shut down debate, if you try to hide the facts and opinions, you leave yourself open to the accusation that your bill is flawed because it didn't cover all the bases.
I heard someone say that this is an important bill and that's why we should truncate debate. I would say that it's just the opposite: this bill is so important that we owe it to Canadians to have a full hearing and to take the time to understand what the terms in the bill mean, what the implications are, and what the legal aspects are. It's important because there are jobs at stake. There is development at stake.
I've heard people say that this is just about industry, but the reality is that it's not just industry that will suffer as a result of this bill. There are hunters, there are trappers, there are people who want to build houses, and there are people who want to rehabilitate their land. All of these people are going to be affected by what's in this bill and, quite frankly, they won't know what any of it means because I'm willing to bet that most of the people around this table don't know what most of it means.
I will mention one specific issue that bothers me a lot. Every time I look at this bill, I see something new. When we come to discuss clause 3 of the bill, I'm going to point out that it says this bill has to be interpreted in accordance “with existing and emerging principles of environmental law”. Well, who around this table knows what “emerging principles of environmental law” means? I venture to suggest that the drafter of the bill doesn't know what “emerging principles of environmental law” means.
I'll reserve the rest of my comments...well, actually, I won't have the time. I won't have the time to talk about my concerns, because if this motion passes unamended, at most I will have five minutes to speak for the whole Conservative Party.
So maybe I should just take a moment and say, for example, that I don't know whether that means principles of law that are emerging today when we pass the bill, or principles of law that are emerging when a matter happens to get to court, whether that's five, or ten, or twenty years from now.
I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging in Canada or whether it means principles of law that are emerging in North America, or indeed, whether some Hungarian environmentalist can propose a principle and this bill will need to be interpreted in accordance with that. In fact, I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging only in the courts or also academically.
It really behooves us as legislators when we pass laws to pass them with sufficient precision such that everybody knows what we mean. And it doesn't even help, quite frankly, if all of us around this table know what we mean, because you have to be able to read a law and know what it means.
I can guarantee you that no one will know what it means when we say, “emerging principles of environmental law”. At the very best, this is what I would describe as a lawyer's nightmare--or maybe it's an environmental lawyer's dream, because that clause can mean whatever you want it to mean.
There's a line from Alice in Wonderland to that effect. I don't know if it was the Red Queen...it might have been Humpty Dumpty who said, “Words mean what I say they do”. The point is that “emerging principles of environmental law” has no meaning and all meaning, and that concerns me.
And as I mentioned a moment ago, every time I put my eye to paper and look at this bill, I see something more like that, which gives me great concern. I have taken a little bit of time to speak about that particular one because if Ms. 's motion passes--in fact, even if it passes with the amendment that I have proposed--there won't be enough time to talk about all of these issues. We would be delinquent, derelict, and shamefully disregarding our duties as legislators.
Thank you very much.
:
Mr. Chair, when I asked to speak just now, I knew what I was going to speak about. But I have to tell you that, given the way the meeting is going, I frankly no longer have any idea what I want to say. I apologize, but I still have some comments to make.
First of all, Mr. Chair, the amendment that you accepted, is barely in order, in my view. It is the same as the previous one, with the number of minutes changed. Nevertheless, you accepted it.
What I find most ironic is to hear government members telling the committee to speak up more. I personally do everything in my power to limit my remarks, so that we do not waste time and so that the committee ends up accomplishing something. I find the irony hard to believe.
We can always debate for the sake of debate, but I am not used to that. My training did not teach me to debate just for the pleasure of hearing the sound of my own voice. I am not a lawyer, I am an architect and a university professor. As a professor, I know that you have to make your point quickly because, after three minutes, students are not listening any more and no longer understand what you are saying. It has to be the same for other people too.
People have talked about the democratic principle. Personally, I look at what happens in the House of Commons, where not everyone speaks. Every member from every party does not have to be on their feet for ten minutes talking about a bill. Anyway, the ten minutes is to speak to a bill, which is a bigger subject than speaking to a clause for five minutes. It is also the case that the people who speak are the ones chosen to do so. Why would we not do the same thing in committee?
By the way, no one ever said that each member would have to speak, even for a minute. We just have to pick the best spokesperson, and he or she can speak for five minutes.
So one person from each party would speak for five minutes. We never mentioned dividing up the time. Imagine if we did that in the House. It would mean that, with every member getting one minute to speak, everything would take 368 minutes. It doesn't work like that. I just point out that is no less democratic in the House. Here, each party has five minutes to express their point of view. That is both democratic and fair.
We are pushing very hard so that, hopefully, we can think about democracy in a new way that has nothing to do with British parliamentary tradition. It's always about British parliamentary tradition, it seems to me. Let's drop the democracy argument, let's stop saying that it is undemocratic if each member of the committee does not have a set time to speak. It works like that in the House, let's do the same in committee.
:
Mr. Chair, I want to give an example that shows how important it is to look into things closely.
On November 22, Mr. Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, appeared before us. Speaking about the Environmental Bill of Rights, he said the following: “Ontario's EBR provides the public with a different but comparable set of legal rights.“ You can take that to the bank, because it is in writing.
After the commissioner had stated that those rights were similar to the ones provided by the bill we are studying, colleagues from the opposition asked him questions about that. In fact, the commissioner said that he was just making some general comments, because, in reality, things were very different. When it came down to it, he recognized that the federal bill was much less clearly structured than the Ontario charter.
That is why it is important for us to take the time we need to study the bill clause by clause. It is not a question of filibustering.
I would also remind Mr. Ouellet that parliamentary committees are structured so that all members have equal weight in representing their fellow citizens. Yes, there are party lines, but I think it is just as important, extremely important, in fact, for all members to be able to have their say. That does not mean that every member is going to have something to say on every clause, but they must have the right to do so. It may also be the case that two members of the same party may have different concerns.
Thank you.
:
--and I'm a little worried that I may use up all the time that has been allocated to the Conservatives, but I do want to try to express myself about this and hope that my colleagues will forgive me if I do use up the time. Also, I don't remember extensive debate on this clause. I do recall Mr. Warawa speaking to it.
I would like to make a number of points. First of all, and I won't dwell on this because...well, someone said to me that nobody was listening when I spoke earlier anyway, so maybe I should dwell on it, but I'll try not to go on too long on it.
First of all, the preamble to clause 3 states that “[t]his Act must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law”. I believe that there is no definition in the act of what is meant by “emerging principles”. It is quite an ambiguous phrase in that it may mean principles that are emerging as of today or principles that are emerging as of whenever a case hits the courts or is decided. It may mean principles that are emerging in Canadian courts. It may mean principles that are emerging in courts around the world. Or it may mean principles that are emerging in academic circles.
To me, it's very inappropriate. I'll just quickly repeat that from the perspective of a conscientious lawyer, it's a nightmare clause. From the perspective of other lawyers, perhaps, it's a dream clause, because it can mean absolutely anything or almost nothing.
Apart from that, I'd like to comment on the issue of the principle of sustainable development, which I think occupied most of Mr. Warawa's comments previously. I'd like to approach it from a different point of view. I don't wish to simply repeat what Mr. Warawa has said. Rather, I would point out that in clause 3, “the principle of sustainable development” is now a coequal principle, along with four others. I'll speak about the others in a moment.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that with this act, for the very first time since it became a primary or paramount principle of Canadian environmental law, the principle of sustainable development will no longer be primary or paramount in Canadian environmental law. It will simply be one of five. A lawyer will know that this arrangement allows for a judicial officer to pick and choose and weight and unweight between principles. Consequently, I think that wording introduces an amazing shift in Canadian environmental law.
Apart from that, the principle of sustainable development as it is defined in this act is quite different from what we might have seen up to this point. We have to refer back to the act. If you look at the definition of sustainable development in clause 2, it is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Now, this has a very poetic sound to it, but in fact, previously--and I'll give you what came from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002--it was acknowledged that the principle or the concept of sustainable development comprised three pillars: economic development, social development, and environmental protection.
The definition in this bill does not spell that out. Every statute is interpreted as if it means something. This is an important point for those around the table who are not lawyers.
When you have a statute and a judge is trying to figure out what it means, the judge has to try to read meaning into it. So a judge is going to have to try to determine why it is that this definition of sustainable development doesn't refer, for example, to economic development or doesn't specifically refer to social development. It must mean something different. That's the conclusion that might well be reached.
I would like to go back to something I mentioned earlier, lest it be lost. This definition of the principle of sustainable development does not include the qualifier “cost-effective on preventive measures”, which has been already adopted in Canadian law. It introduces a new meaning, and it'll be heck to pay to try to figure out what to do with existing measures that refer to that clause. It also does not use the qualifier “serious or irreversible” regarding environmental damages, which is necessary to trigger the precautionary principle. Both of those phrases are accepted globally, and I refer you to the Rio statement on that principle.
Apart from that, there are other principles in this provision that are ill-defined. The idea of intergenerational equity, for example, is found nowhere else in federal law. It is, in a sense, referred to in principle 3 of the Rio declaration, but in an entirely different formulation, which reads, “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”.
So this doesn't include development. It must mean something different. It must mean not to refer to development--or at least that possibility is out there.
The principle of environmental justice is referred to in American law, but again with a different definition than the one that appears in this bill. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States states that environmental justice “will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment...”.
Now, I will simply conclude by saying in my 45 seconds remaining that this was an incomplete analysis of the problems that exist in this clause. It was much too hurried to really get the points across and a totally inadequate way for a serious and conscientious legislator to try to debate such a far-reaching and important bill.
Thank you.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Woodworth, for not using up his full eight minutes. I thought that was a very good example, Chair.
This clause refers to aboriginal rights. It says:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Chair, in our discussions over the last few days, what came up was the shock that we had not heard from first nations. This greatly impacts first nations. It impacts agreements with first nations. It possibly affects treaties, because we heard that Bill would retroactively go after agreements and treaties. So if any resident or entity is felt to be in violation, or if this concerned any Canadian--excuse me, “resident” or “entity”--an action could be launched.
Chair, what clause 4 makes clear is that nothing in the act affects existing aboriginal treaty rights protected under the Constitution Act. Therefore, clause 4 is a common practice in federal statutes.
What it does do is create uncertainty. As I said, it's common in federal statutes that reiterate that Parliament does not intend to narrow, extinguish, or otherwise interfere with constitutionally protected aboriginal rights or treaties. If it's already there and it's dealt with, then this creates uncertainty. It's not needed, because any law that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid. So the moment that you place this in Bill , it creates uncertainty. It's unnecessary and it shouldn't be there. It should be struck. That would be the appropriate way of dealing with this.
Now, in the interests of time, I could move a motion that it be struck, or we can leave it in place and vote against it. But we do not want to create uncertainty with aboriginal rights so therefore, in the interests of time and given our desire to see this be reported back to the House before the Christmas break, my question for the member, through the chair, is, would she accept that this be struck from her bill, Bill ?
:
On the point of order that was raised, I don't recall the motion saying that one member speaks for the party.
The Chair: No. You have four minutes left.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth: I don't think it's a case of sharing time; it's a case of time being left, and I'm on the list. So if you don't mind, I'll approach it that way, but I don't think I will take four minutes.
I'm not entirely sure it was clear when Mr. Warawa spoke that this provision does not protect the rights of aboriginals acquired through non-constitutionally arranged items or arrangements with first nations. This bill applies to decisions of government departments--so to any decisions of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs relating to both reserve lands and first nations individuals. It applies to decisions related to reserve lands, and therefore could apply to decisions of first nations relating to reserve lands under the First Nations Land Management Act, self-governing agreements, or other arrangements.
I want it to be crystal clear, for those who are listening at home at least, that this clause 4 does not protect the rights of aboriginals who are coming out of voluntary agreements or actions by the federal government. It's only those that are the result of a constitutional guarantee.
I might also say, for what it's worth, that technically you don't need clause 4 to protect rights that are constitutionally guaranteed to aboriginals. Although I know it's a common provision in federal statutes, it really isn't necessary. It is not necessary to do the job it tries to do, and it's not adequate to provide complete protection to aboriginals.
Thank you.
Actually, clause 5 allows citizens to use legal remedies other than the ones provided for in this bill, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, for example. Although we have seen that that act has a number of remedies that are extremely harmful, if not devastating, for industry and for entrepreneurs of all kinds.
I have already expressed my concern to committee members about that clause, which, far from removing remedies, provides additional ones and allows anyone in the country to come along and oppose existing bills or acts that have already been approved.
So I have a lot of reservations about that clause.
That is all I have to say.
:
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 5 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 6--Purpose)
The Chair: Clause 5 has carried, so we're going to clause 6 and Liberal amendment number one.
First I'll read the main clause, and then I'll read the amendment.
The clause reads:
The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to
(a) safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment;
(b) confirm the Government of Canada's public trust duty to protect the environment under its jurisdiction;
(c) ensure all Canadians have access to
i) one adequate environmental information,
ii) justice in environmental context, and
iii) effective mechanisms for participating in environmental decision-making;
(d) provide adequate legal protection against reprisals for employees who take action for the purpose of protecting the environment; and
(e) enhance the public confidence in the implementation of environmental law.
The amendment proposes adding, after line 18, on page 7, the following:
This Act is intended to complement Canada's rights and obligations under international law. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any international convention in force in Canada, the provision of the convention will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
Now we're talking to the amendment.
Mr. Woodworth.
Actually, we should let the Liberals go first.
:
All right. There are two legal issues with this amendment that are going to create problems if it's adopted. It took me a while to put my finger on the problem when I first read it, but I had a conversation with someone and it became clear to me.
It's largely around the word “inconsistency”. I have seen this precise wording in a submission from a shipping group, I think, and I'm assuming that's where it was taken from. The difficulty with the word “inconsistency” is that it's not very legally precise. Most often, one would see the word “conflict”, as in “if there is a conflict”. Something might be somewhat inconsistent but not necessarily in conflict. I don't know how this will play out in the implementation of it, but I think it's a somewhat more vague and imprecise word.
The second problem legally with this provision is that it talks about an inconsistency between this act and the provisions of an international convention in force in Canada. I'm not sure that is the right way to proceed, in that sometimes Canada will ratify an international convention but at least not necessarily implement it in law immediately, if at all.
I would have thought that a better approach would have been to talk about a conflict between the provisions of this act and any other provision of Canadian law flowing from international written obligations or something along that line. To be honest, I haven't tried to figure out how it could be cured, but these are problems that I expect this committee and the House will be leaving to future generations if this amendment is passed.
Thank you.