Environment Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to welcome our guests. As members can see, we have the order of business....

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for acknowledging me. I would like to move immediately that the committee reverse the order of business and begin today with the consideration of my motion as tabled.

That's a point of order. It's about what comes first on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, the clerk advises me you can't move a motion on a point of order.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So could you please explain how we can continue with this order of the day when the motion put to the committee today calls for a major change in the way we're going to conduct today's business?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As I understand it, you can make a motion to switch the order, but that wouldn't be a point of order on your part.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Then I'd like to move that the committee reverse the order of business and begin today with consideration of my motion. I'm prepared to move the motion, as written on the agenda, immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I am quite shocked at the attempt by Mr. McGuinty to not hear from witnesses. I don't know if he's aware that there was a smog alert in Windsor yesterday, and there's a smog alert today in Windsor and Toronto. The topic for today is smog, and we have the witnesses here. Now to tell these witnesses who have come ready to share with the committee about smog...I'm shocked.

Chair, maybe you could share the reason why we have the witnesses here. You have the discretion. I could go through Marleau and Montpetit and share information on the authority you have. The chair and the clerk have the authority to arrange meetings, and now we have the witnesses here. To change this and tell the witnesses after they've come here that we're not going to hear from them....

There is a very disturbing pattern here. I've asked this committee and I've asked Mr. McGuinty numerous times that we deal with solutions on the environment. We see these silly games being played by the Liberals, and it's very disturbing.

Canadians want us to work on the environment. They want us to work on solutions. We have people here to talk about solutions and how to deal with smog. Now to say we're not going to deal with solutions is very disturbing.

Maybe you could share with the committee why we have people here today to talk about smog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, I will answer that question and explain exactly what happened and why we are dealing with smog today. But first I would like to hear from members.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I find this a rather disturbing pattern too. I'd just say to the honourable member that some of us actually want to get some work together. We're amenable to your ideas, or ideas from members from the Bloc or the NDP. Nathan has some good stuff that comes forward as well.

But if this is constantly done for no particularly good reason, it certainly poisons the atmosphere in a committee. I understand from past history around this place that Mr. McGuinty was a little more agreeable to working on things. He has somehow taken this great responsibility now as the lead critic for the Liberals, and all of a sudden there is a change of personality, it would almost seem.

I have a problem with his constantly bringing these kinds of things forward. We're running this committee by motions that McGuinty puts forward pretty much on an everyday basis, and I don't find value in that. If you're ever interested in hearing from a colleague who means the best for you at this point, you could maybe get some of your things accomplished and put forward if you had a little less of a chippy attitude in always bringing stuff forward in this manner. I don't think there's any particular gain in it for you or your party--even for partisan purposes here.

We have witnesses here. I have come prepared to listen to them on a pretty crucial issue, yet we have this kind of silliness going on again and again.

I don't see Mr. Godfrey or Anthony doing it, but Mr. McGuinty somehow feels he has a pit bull kind of responsibility to do this. I don't really see, in all sincerity, David, the need to do this all the time. If you carry on with this, you're not going to get the cooperation you want when maybe you could. I don't like this.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

On a point of order, what are we debating now, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, we are debating your motion. I have interpreted that you have made a motion and that your motion is that we switch the order of business from two to one. We are now debating that motion, and we'll vote on that motion.

I believe Mr. Cullen is next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just have some initial comments on what we are now engaged in as a committee. Perhaps it's because the issue of the environment is at such a critical point right now with the Canadian public and there's pressure on all members of this committee to defend their party's interest or their citizens' interests. But it seems to ramp up quite quickly.

I think the politics of the personal attack are not warranted in today's discussion. I don't think that helps any of us in establishing what's going on here, and I'd urge members to resist the temptation. I think it distracts us from our responsibility, which is to deal with the actual issue at hand, and it will ensure that there is discord again at this committee. And since we've had a previous history of working quite well together on a number of difficult issues, I would again ask members to resist that temptation.

My main concern today with Mr. McGuinty's motion and the process that was used here is that I feel, because the issue of the G-8 and various government plans to deal with climate change is of such a contentious nature and of such a timely nature, as the House winds down before summer.... I do have concerns about the process used. I've expressed those to you, Chair, and I want committee members to know that you and I have had that discussion.

I think in the context of previous actions by the government whip in terms of committee chairs and the attempt to bend committees in a certain direction, which is not an accusation I'm making of you, Chair.... This is the context in which we are operating. And I think it's important.

This committee is charged with one of the most fundamental responsibilities in this Parliament: dealing with Canada's position on the environment and ensuring that it's the best position possible. We have to take that seriously and find a way beyond the partisanship to actually establish a good process so that there's constant confidence in the process we're using. I think confidence has been shaken. I think we need to re-establish ourselves with credibility as a committee that actually performs its tasks well and gets the job done with the least amount of partisan bickering possible.

I'll leave my comments at that for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I could have given that same speech. That's my sentiment exactly.

We'll go to Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the government says that it is shocked today by Mr. McGuinty's attitude, but what shocks me this morning is our agenda. That is what is shocking.

Mr. Chairman, you will have to explain in a few minutes why you decided to change the agenda despite the decision made by the committee on June 7, which is clearly indicated in the minutes. That decision was as follows:

That, on June 14, 2007, the Committee proceeds to the study of a post G8 debrief on climate change developments and Canada's position within the broader international context.

That is what we decided. What is shocking is not the opposition's attitude, but the fact that the government has decided to undertake a study of smog. That is an important issue, of course, but the agenda cannot be changed without consulting us.

Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, we never received a call from you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

A point of order, Mr. Bigras.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the government did not interfere with any decision. Mr. Bigras has said the chair and the government--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll explain that, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I simply said that, from what I understand, the government wants to begin a study today of an issue that was not mentioned in the June 7^th decision. The government should at the very least admit that we need to comply with the June 7^th decision, which was agreed to by a majority vote in this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am therefore expecting a clear explanation from you and a commitment that we will proceed in accordance with the June 7^th decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think everyone's had an opportunity. Let me explain, and let me assure you that this was not under any government pressure. I'll go through some of the history.

First, let me quote from the meeting of June 7, where I said in answer to a number of questions:

...I believe this group should be centred around the sherpa, who has been working for months and months on the negotiations. So you centre it around him and you put people, basically, on the economic side of it, the scientific side of it, the environmental side of it, and we have a round table, literally, at which everyone gets an opportunity to ask these people the questions they want about what happens. That's the intention of this meeting.

I went on further to say, in answer to another question:

Definitely we will try to achieve the balanced approach. That to me is the only successful way of doing this. We don't need just one side of any issue. So we've tried to live with that throughout all of our meetings, and I would intend to do that again.

So that was stated very clearly, and I think everyone agreed and nodded and said yes, that's certainly how we've operated.

Then, further on in that statement, names were put forward. Mr. McGuinty put forward people like Don Drummond, someone from the Pembina Institute, and later, Mark Jaccard. Mr. Warawa suggested Mr. Kirton, Mr. Myers, and Mr. Drexhage. I suggested David Mulroney, who was the sherpa who had been working on this all the time.

So between the clerk and I, we started to work on this, starting with the sherpa, the centre point, which I think everyone understood.

Mr. Mulroney was contacted a number of times by the clerk, with no result. I then personally tried to contact him, ultimately going through many circles, and by about seven at night I was told I would have an answer by the next morning. This is now Tuesday of this week.

David Mulroney was contacted and was unavailable throughout that day. Don Drummond was unavailable totally. Matthew Bramley was available. Don Drexhage was not available. John Kirton from the University of Toronto was not available. Jayson Myers was not available. David Keith was not available. Lorne Johnson was not available, and Finn Poschmann from the C.D. Howe Institute was available.

So that's where we started making these phone calls and finding out who was available for Thursday, which is what the committee wanted to have happen.

Finally, when I did get hold of Mr. Mulroney, the sherpa, he said, “Well, I would love to come before the committee and explain what happened at the G-8 through all stages of development of the process.” That is what I understood Mr. McGuinty wanted to have happen--to understand our position, what happened, from people who were actually there.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, may I interrupt for a second? I really need to. It is a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, I need to explain this.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I know you do.