Environment Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, following on Mr. McGuinty's question, it's my understanding that there's also a legislative obligation in CEAA, and I understand that CEAA's been referred to CCME rather than to the parliamentary committee. I'm wondering if we could be advised on what the government is planning to do with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and whether that will be coming before a committee.

The act actually requires that it be reviewed by either this committee or a Senate committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Warawa, do you have any...?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I could report back to committee. At this time I have nothing to report on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Further to Mr. Warawa's comments about the environmental enforcement issue, it was a 2007 election platform commitment to strengthen and consolidate enforcement and penalty provisions in a number of different existing environmental bills, and it seems to me appropriate that when that is tabled, the committee hold hearings to thoroughly review the amendments required in order to strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws in Canada.

I would like to suggest that although that's not on our draft agenda, it should be a matter for future consideration by this committee, that we do hold hearings when that legislation is introduced in order to thoroughly review it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that a motion, Mr. Woodworth?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't think it requires a motion from us this morning. My general impression is that our procedures that we've adopted at our organizing meeting would allow us this once legislation is tabled. If, as Mr. Warawa says, it is likely to be, it should be part of our agenda.

I am really only mentioning it today for planning purposes so that we can take it into account. I hope everyone will agree that hearings will be a good idea for a review of that legislation as and when it's introduced. We should make some allowance for that in our work.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think you're right. Of course, when it's introduced we'll have no choice but to visit the legislation, but it is something that we need to keep in the back of our minds as we plan the way forward.

Mr. McGuinty, did you have a comment?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

My colleague Mr. Bigras raised his hand before I did.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we should come back to the agenda. Some issues should be studied more closely based on what Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Warawa just said.

So let's come back to the agenda. I think we are at item three. I would like us to immediately put under "other matters" government legislative planning. I understand what Mr. Woodworth said. That goes without saying. When a bill is tabled, the committee makes it its priority.

In order to help the committee and the subcommittee plan its work, we have to know what the government's timelines are. We need to be able to plan our work. If the review of standards which was contained in the 2007 electoral platform is to take place next spring, that is less of a problem than if the government announced that it would table a bill within the next two weeks. I would like to ask the government if it is working with us, the members of the committee, and if so, that it give us some indication to help us plan our work.

Let me just repeat that on the issue of the oil sands, no date nor deadline was mentioned. So the study could be carried on indefinitely.

If we want to have a good work plan, produce a good study and in particular a good report, we have to know what the government intends to come up with over the next few months.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Warawa, is this something you can speak to today or would you have more details at the steering committee?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I think we should wait for the steering committee to give those kinds of details.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The idea is a good one, I think. We are going to need to know what's coming down the pipeline, as it were.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Sure. As we go to other items, as I said in my comments about five minutes ago, I'll be raising environmental enforcement as an item that we should have on our future agenda.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I concur that we need to have a plan of action, because once we start setting up witnesses to come in on the tar sands water issues, we won't want to be continually rescheduling, so it would be good to know the statutory obligations.

I would also like to add to the request for the parliamentary secretary. Could he advise us of what matters are coming forward on international obligations? It is my understanding that there is a report due on the biodiversity convention. Presumably, that would also come to this committee. It would be helpful to this committee if we could have a report both on the statutory obligations for review of the statutes and also on any international obligations to be reporting within this coming fiscal year.

I understand the biodiversity one is due at any moment. It would be good to have that come before this committee, possibly at the same time that we review SARA.

I understand there are potential Fisheries Act amendments coming forward, some of which might go to fisheries committee and some of which would come here. If they are to do with deleterious substances, Environment Canada enforces those provisions. It would be helpful if we had a broad array of various legislative reforms that are coming forward.

I would like to put forward a motion which relates to the agreement that the enforcement and compliance amendments to CEPA come before this committee. I would like to move that when those amendments are tabled before this committee the department also table any revised enforcement compliance policy.

I am raising this because when CEPA was originally enacted, the Conservative government tabled at the same time a very momentous document, and that was the first ever official enforcement compliance policy. That triggered enforcement compliance policies across the provinces.

Since that time, that has not been the practice of government, and I think it is very incumbent on government, particularly if we are going to be reviewing amendments to the statute dealing with more effective enforcement. More important is what the enforcement compliance policy is, the official policy of the department, and how they are going to be gearing up for applying these mechanisms.

So my motion is that at the same time that those amendments would come before this committee, the department would also table their enforcement compliance policy and any changes thereto.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a very good point, Ms. Duncan.

My sense is that when the legislation does come forward normally the first witnesses we hear are the minister and/or the departmental officials. I think what you're suggesting would be a very good entry point into the whole discussion, so I would hope—and we can pass a motion to make sure that it happens—that when the legislation does come through we start the hearings with an overview of enforcement and compliance policy.

Is that more or less what you're getting at?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes. And it would be very important that we receive in advance not only the proposed statutory amendments but also the enforcement compliance policy, and any changes thereto.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you like to propose that?

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm just stating that she's made a motion. The recommendation of Mr. Bigras was that we follow the agenda. I think we're bouncing all over the place here. To provide some organizational framework here, I'd request that she remove that motion and reintroduce it when we go into other business. At this point we're bouncing all over.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just to answer that point, Mr. Warawa, I'm actually trying to stay on track here. This is a motherhood sort of motion. Maybe we could just agree that we ask formally that the departmental officials discuss this when we start looking at the legislation. We could have a motion, a very simple motion, and just be done with it, or we could ask the clerk to write to the department to suggest that when they come they start with an overview of enforcement and compliance policy.

I agree with you, I don't think we need to spend too much time on this point. It seems to me pretty straightforward. But if you want to ask that the motion be withdrawn, that's, of course, your right.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I have no problem discussing the motion; it's just that we just discussed estimates, and the next item was a species at risk review. I was ready to speak on that, and now suddenly we're dealing with other business, which is item six.

I would prefer that we stay with the agenda, which is item number four. If you want to deal with this motion, I'll be moving a deferral until the end of the meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Duncan, would you like to move your motion at the end, or would you like to not move your motion at the end.? What would you like to do?