Environment Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Certainly we can raise questions, but it's a much bigger issue. On the main estimates, presumably we can broaden it out, but we need to know where the statutorily required review of CEAA is and what is happening with that. Where is this proposed complete rewriting of CEAA at? Are they intending to bring forward a new bill? If so, we need to have that, very critically, on our agenda. It's hard to have a serious discussion about the agenda until they let us know what's happening with the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree 100% with Ms. Duncan. It is completely unacceptable that officials from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency are making PowerPoint presentations to environmental groups on amendments to the act that we parliamentarians have not been informed about. Why is it that civil society groups are being told about possible amendments, and we are not? I think we have to add that question. Even if we have only one meeting on this matter, we must at least be informed about the reports that are appearing in the media at the moment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have a suggestion, Mr. Bigras. On Thursday we have scheduled a one-hour meeting to study the order-in-council appointment of an associate deputy minister. Perhaps we could invite officials from the agency to appear before the committee during the second hour.

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

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We would start the meeting at 9:00 a.m. or 9:15. I will do my best to be here at 9:00 a.m., if that would allow us to hear from representatives of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. If it is urgent, we could call them to appear on Thursday. That would give you an opportunity to ask the questions referred to by Ms. Duncan and yourself.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A good starting point for opposition MPs would be to review the blues from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities from last spring, where we had the CEAA in front of the committee discussing potential changes to accelerate infrastructure funding. That agenda item was pushed by Mr. Masse, who was on the committee at that time, as well as Monsieur Laframboise, both looking to have a discussion about potential changes that could be had to accelerate infrastructure funding.

Some of this discussion has happened in front of parliamentarians prior to Bill C-10 changes, as well as the budget speech, which announced that it was part of the five-point plan to eliminate red tape. This is not entirely out of left field for members of Parliament. I suggest maybe they could start there in reviewing the blues and the testimony from CEAA.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I have Mr. McGuinty and then Ms. Duncan.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Watson has missed the point. What took place at the transport committee last spring was a discussion of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is part of Bill C-10. What's being discussed or reported in the media as being discussed behind closed doors with CEAA and environmental NGOs are changes contemplated to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Bill C-10 does not speak to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It speaks to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

These are more significant and more material changes. I share Monsieur Bigras' and Ms. Duncan's concern that this isn't being brought to this committee. That's why I asked four times in a row this morning what the government's legislative agenda was, and the answer I got was that we're bringing in environmental enforcement. Okay. We're bringing in environmental enforcement.

Yes or no: Is the government pursuing legislative changes to CEAA behind closed doors? I think that's a reasonable question to have been asked by Monsieur Bigras. We're all concerned. I'm sure every Conservative MP sitting at this committee is concerned about environmental assessment and the impacts on our communities, so we would like to know. Is this an issue under item six, “other matters”, that we ought to be dealing with sooner rather than later? However, they're not the same, Mr. Watson.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Duncan, then Mr. Warawa.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Watson, you might want to look at the blues again, because in that meeting the transport committee agreed that they revisit the matter and allow the public to come and review it again.

As Mr. McGuinty said, the matter of CEAA incorporates the backhanded amendments to navigable waters in the budget bill, which is reprehensible enough. What is more reprehensible is that apparently there are major changes underway to CEAA and it is not coming before this committee as is statutorily required.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, doing a quick math of approximately 22 meetings we have starting next week, we have a lot to cover. I'm quite concerned that with the amount of work that's going to be passed on to the steering committee, we may not get productive until we're well past the 22 meetings. We may end up with only 18 meetings after hearing from the steering committee and having to debate that further.

In the interest of moving along as we are required, there is a legislative requirement to review the Species at Risk Act. I was hoping we would hear from the whips. As I said earlier, this was raised at the whips' level. When we did CEPA, and there was a legislative requirement to review CEPA, we did that at committee. It was moved and it began.

So I am going to move my motion that we undertake the five-year legislative review of the Species at Risk Act, as required by the said act, and that that review begin Tuesday of next week.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just as an aside, I take your point that we have a lot on our plate. We have a free hour on Thursday, so that's why I was suggesting we could invite CEAA for an hour and ask them some pretty pointed questions.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I understand the motion Mr. Warawa has just moved, but I think it would be in order and preferable that this motion be moved in the House, and that the House ask the committee to study this matter. I think it would be preferable to proceed in this way rather than passing a motion here.

I am not saying that we are opposed to the idea, but I do think we should not make a decision before the House gives us some instructions. I am not saying that this would create a precedent, but I do not think it would be good form. In any case, as I understand it, there have been some discussions among the whips, and the motion will be coming forward. There is consent that this will be done.

However, if the parliamentary secretary would like to move a motion, he is absolutely entitled to do so. Nevertheless, I would prefer to let the House refer this to us, and that should be done within the next few hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are debating Mr. Warawa's motion.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

It seems to me that the issue is on the order of things. As Mr. Warawa has brought up a number of times, we have an awful lot on our plate. I don't know why we should rush into SARA without being asked to, officially and formally. There is the oil sands report. There are a number of issues we need to look at that do have a significant amount of urgency to them. I'm all for waiting for the proper order of things, and it will perhaps allow us to be more focused on the things we do have standing before us, rather than initiating more.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Trudeau.

Ms. Duncan?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, of course the government is free to bring forward a motion at any time, but it seems to be at odds with what this committee just agreed, that the only sensible, mature way for this committee to proceed is to have before it the full information, including the information on the statutorily required reviews.

We have yet to have tabled before us what the date is for the review of CEAA, so it seems absolutely inappropriate and contrary to the decision we just reached that we agree we would first review what the deadlines are for these various statutory matters.

I intend to review it with my colleagues.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Actually, strictly speaking, we haven't reached any decisions here today at all, except to refer matters through to the steering committee, so I don't think it's quite right to characterize what's been now proposed as in any way not in accord with anything that's already been decided.

Apart from that, it seems to me that no one has disputed that there is an immediate statutory obligation to review the SARA. Whether it comes now or whether we wait for a request from Parliament, nobody has disputed that it has to be done and that it's an immediate obligation. Consequently, I think it's quite appropriate that we get that done and out of the way.

In the meantime, we've got dozens of other suggestions about what we'll do for the rest of our time between now and June. As Mr. Warawa points out, it could take a while to even get that agenda figured out. In the meantime, we can at least do something constructive with SARA.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bigras.

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

I understand what Mr. Woodworth is saying, but the situation is not such at the moment that the committee needs to pass such a motion in order to move forward. I repeat that as regards the review of the act—and this will appear in the minutes—the Bloc has said that it supported this. Agreement was reached among the whips. Under these circumstances, I see no need for the committee to pass a motion of this type. There is no point in doing that.

Mr. Chair, we must be cautious. The House will invite the committee to look into this matter. The committee has certain responsibilities, but it is preferable to wait for references from the House, and that should happen within the next few hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Duncan has raised an important point. I think the government has to go back and do its homework. It should come to the committee and explain to it what is forthcoming in terms of mandatory reviews, a legislated review for SARA, other reviews under other international conventions, and some work on the Sustainable Development Act. I think Mr. Woodworth is correct in saying, if we find it's only a question of a nominal assessment of what stage the reporting is at, let's hear it.

There is a whole series of reportables, a whole series of deliverables that are mandatory and that compel the government to do things. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to know what they are. It's their job.

Mr. Warawa, with all due respect—through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Warawa—it's your job, as a parliamentary secretary, to know what exactly is forthcoming here and to present it and roll it out, so that we as a committee can spend taxpayers' dollars and time wisely by addressing issues that are sequential, by addressing issues that are mandated.

Your own government had a motion here a month ago saying you wanted to make sure we dealt with government business first. I agree. What is the government business—not only in terms of what is legislated as mandatory work by this committee, but what are you actually doing as a government in terms of legislation?

We're all seeing ghosts right now, apparently, around amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We don't know what's going on; you don't seem to know what's going on; I don't know whether you know what's going on, Mr. Chair. Before asking for a motion on compelling one piece of work over another, Mr. Warawa, all objective observers would probably agree that it would be important for you to lay out for this committee, on behalf of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, what it is you have to do, what it is we have to do, what it is Ms. Duncan is addressing here concerning international conventions and requirements and responsibilities.

I think that would be useful before foreclosing on a work plan that is 22 meetings long, which is a lot of time. How is it possible to go forward even to the subcommittee next week, Mr. Chair, if we don't have a clear indication of what is forthcoming? I ask the question objectively. How are we supposed to do this?