C-38: read it and split - Macleans.ca

C-38: read it and split


Elizabeth May reviews the budget bill.

I went over to one Conservative MP to inquire where he found the equivalency provisions and he pointed to the bill’s summary —  not a legislatively operative section. True, the summary section claims the processes must be equivalent, but the bill itself falls short of that or any other objective criteria. The provisions allowing for a provincial government to sign an agreement to substitute the federal environmental review with a provincial review are a strange combination of discretionary and mandatory language. 

Discretionary: “If the Minister is of the opinion that a process for assessing the environmental effects of designated projects that is followed by the government of a province…that has the powers, duties or functions in relation to an assessment of the environmental effects of a designated process would be an appropriate substitute (mandatory) the Minister must, on request of the province approve the substitution.” (Section 32, on page 51 of C-38.)

What would make the minister think it was “appropriate”?  “Appropriate” is not defined.  Maybe Environment Canada is short of cash?  Maybe the province is looking for a major development and wants it rubber-stamped quickly?  There is nothing to rule out an exercise of discretion without any ability to justify it as “equivalent.” Once the Minister has reached that conclusion and a province requests a substitution, there is a mandatory duty to pass over the federal role to the province.

In QP yesterday afternoon, Scott Brison asked the government to hold itself to the standards of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill completely rewrites Canada’s environment laws. In the Senate, Liberals asked that the bill be split up so that the relevant Senate committee could study it. The government actually agreed. Since the Conservatives agreed to break up the bloated bill for Senate committee study, why not the same for the elected House? Even better, and following the same logic, why will the Conservatives not break up the bill into separate pieces of legislation so we can not only study individually at committee but we can actually vote on each part? Why will the Conservative members of Parliament not do their job? Why will they not allow the members of Parliament on the other side to do their job?

The government’s initial reaction yesterday to the NDP’s proposal was fairly dismissive. But perhaps today’s meeting and yesterday’s development in the Senate suggest some chance for negotiation.


C-38: read it and split

  1. All involved would benefit if the Conservatives opened up the process & the opposition worked to actually improve the bill. The initial filibuster gambit of the NDP finance critic was not a good start. That said, the Conservatives have a pretty poor record of getting the details right in their legislation, indeed they don’t give much indication that they give a crap about getting the details right.

    The Conservatives have their majority and therefore can pass legislation to accelerate the projects that they want accelerated. However, they do have to pass legislation that is legal and accomplishes what they want. My guess is that as is, this legislation will generate multiple legal challenges which could well delay the very projects dear to them. Of course, it will give the Conservative war-room a great opening to rant about money-laundering environmentalists, activist judges etc, but really they should get on with effective government.