Tilson blasted for supporting budget bills end to environmental assessment

By DAN PELTON Staff Reporter 2012-06-21 / Front Page

The Dufferin-Caledon Liberal candidate in the last federal election is calling for MP David Tilsons resignation, suggesting he misled constituents when he presented a petition in the House of Commons calling for a federal environmental assessment of the Melancthon quarry. In an open letter to Mr. Tilson, Bill Prout wrote: As recently as 4 June, 2012, you rose in the House of Commons and presented a petition to Parliament requesting an environmental assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act. And yet, a scant ten days later, you vote to repeal the Environmental Assessment Act! You voted to repeal the self-same Act under which you had been gathering signatures all this time for your own petition! At press time Mr. Tilson had not commented on the accusation, having been busy in Ottawa dealing with the budgets passage in the House of Commons late Monday. His Orangeville office was the scene of a rally last week, where attendees were calling for Mr. Tilson to be one of 13 heroes who would vote against the controversial omnibus Bill C-38 and, thus, not allow it to pass.

13 Heroes was a national drive, organized by an advocacy group called Lead Now. While the prospect of 13 Tory MPs voting against the budget was highly unlikely, Orangeville rally participant Ian McGugan said the message was more than a symbolic gesture on Lead Nows part. Canadas democracy is broken, said Mr. McGugan in an e-mail interview. Strong national efforts like the 13 Heroes initiative are the beginning of a process to repair our country's government. This is not symbolism, but evolution. Mr. Prout was concerned about provisions in C-38 that called for the complete repeal and replacement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which he claimed actually had teeth to it, and its replacement by the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, 2012. Mr. Prout felt Mr. Tilson was acting under false pretenses when he presented his petition to the house, because the petition called for action under the old act. The Liberal candidate contended that Mr. Tilson was already aware the old act was going to be replaced. I believe you suddenly recognized that after the upcoming vote on Bill C-38, the petition you sponsored would no longer have any force or effect or meaning, Mr. Prout stated in his open letter, and that you would be personally embarrassed by having to withdraw your sponsorship of that petition. Unfortunately, we are all embarrassed by your misrepresentation, and you actually should resign. The new environmental act has also been an issue of concern for Sierra Club Canada.

While saying the rules in the new act would speed up the federal EA process and, perhaps, make it more efficient, the Sierra Club said: (The) additional enforcement provisions and penalties in the legislative reforms reflect the governments desire to place the onus on industry to ensure that the new rules are being complied with. Noncompliance will be heavily penalized. Mr. Prout disputed an amendment to the Fisheries Act. Rather than prohibiting harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD), there will be a prohibition against carrying out works or activities that result in serious harm to fish. Mr. Prout complained that the new wording is too open to interpretation. There are provisions in the new environmental act that evidently favour industrial projects; particularly in the energy sector. For example, public participation in environmental assessments that are undertaken by the National Energy Board (NEB), or review panels, will be limited to interested parties, defined as parties that are directly affected by the application or persons that have relevant information or experience. This reform will limit the number and type of interveners in NEB hearings and review panel assessments under the new act.