ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 45

Thursday, February 3, 2011

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met at 8:47 a.m. this day, in Room 268, La Promenade Building, the Chair, James Bezan, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Scott Armstrong, James Bezan, Bernard Bigras, Blaine Calkins, Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa and Stephen Woodworth.

Acting Members present: Robert Bouchard for Christian Ouellet, Luc Desnoyers for Christian Ouellet and Robert Sopuck for Steven Blaney.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Kristen E. Courtney, Analyst ; Tim Williams, Analyst . House of Commons: Wayne Cole, Legislative Clerk ; Mariane Beaudin, Procedural Clerk.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 19 of the Bill.

On Clause 19,

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 19, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 38 on page 12.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

After further debate, Clause 19 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bernard Bigras, Luc Desnoyers, Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 6; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 5.

After debate, Clause 20 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bernard Bigras, Luc Desnoyers, Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 6; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 5.

After debate, Clause 21 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bernard Bigras, Luc Desnoyers, Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 6; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 5.

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469 be amended by adding before line 24 on page 13 the following:

“Judicial Review”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bernard Bigras, Luc Desnoyers, Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 6; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 5.

On Clause 22,

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following:

“(3) Notwithstanding remedial provisions in other Acts, if the Federal Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in an application brought under subsection (1), the Federal Court may

(a) grant declaratory relief;

(b) grant an injunction to halt the contravention;

(c) order the parties to negotiate a restoration plan in respect of the significant environmental harm resulting from the contravention and to report to the court on the negotiations within a fixed time;

(d) order the defendant to establish and maintain a monitoring and reporting system in respect of any of its activities that may impair the environment;

(e) order the defendant to restore or rehabilitate any part of the environment;

(f) order the defendant to take specified preventative measures;

(g) order the defendant to prepare a plan for or present proof of compliance with the order;

(h) order the appropriate Minister to monitor compliance with the terms of any order; and

(i) make any other order that the court considers just.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 4; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Bernard Bigras, Robert Bouchard, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 7.

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following:

“(3) In making a decision or an order respecting an application brought under subsection (1), the Federal Court retains jurisdiction over the matter so as to ensure compliance with its decision or order.”

After further debate, Clause 22 was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 4; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Bernard Bigras, Robert Bouchard, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 7.

On new Clause 22.1,

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following new clause:

“22.1 (1) A plaintiff bringing an application under subsection 22(1) may only be ordered by the Federal Court to pay costs if the application is found to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing.

(2) The plaintiff referred to in subsection (1) may be entitled to

(a) counsel fees regardless of whether or not they were represented by counsel; and

(b) an advance cost award upon application to the court if, in the opinion of the court, it is in the public interest.

(3) In exercising its discretion with respect to costs related to an application brought under subsection 22(1), the court may consider any special circumstance, including whether the application is a test case or raises a novel point of law.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was inconsistent with the decision taken by the Committee to negative Clause 22, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

On Clause 23,

Francis Scarpaleggia moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 23, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 31 on page 14.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francis Scarpaleggia and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 3; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Linda Duncan, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 6.

At 10:19 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:24 a.m., the sitting resumed.

Linda Duncan moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 14 the following:

“(4) If a superior court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in an action under subsection (1), the court may

(a) suspend or cancel a permit or authorization issued to the defendant or the defendant’s right to obtain or hold a permit or authorization;

(b) order the defendant to provide financial collateral for the performance of a specified action;

(c) order the defendant to pay an amount to be used for the restoration or rehabilitation of the part of the environment harmed by the defendant; and

(d) order the defendant to pay an amount to be used for the enhancement or protection of the environment generally.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 4; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 5.

Francis Scarpaleggia moved, — That Bill C-469, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 14 the following:

“(4) In making an order under this Act, a superior court may consider

(a) the nature of the environmental harm that has occurred or may occur;

(b) whether the harm resulted from or may result from an attempt to maximize business profits;

(d) the precautionary principle;

(e) the principle of intergenerational equity; and

(f) the economic and social context of the affected area.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francis Scarpaleggia and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Linda Duncan, Gerard Kennedy, Joyce Murray, Francis Scarpaleggia — 4; NAYS: Scott Armstrong, Bernard Bigras, Robert Bouchard, Blaine Calkins, Robert Sopuck, Mark Warawa, Stephen Woodworth — 7.

At 10:45 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Guyanne L. Desforges
Clerk of the Committee

2011/02/18 4:23 p.m.