Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Dec. 14th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Bienvenue. My name is Laurie Hawn. I think everybody knows me, and I think everybody at the table knows everybody else. Welcome to the first meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

I'll just read you the letter I received from the Speaker. It says:Dear Mr. Hawn:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, I am pleased to confirm your appointment as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

Yours truly,

Peter Milliken, M.P.

So that's what we're here for, and I thank you all for coming today. I know most of the rest of our colleagues have departed, but it's important that we get on with this important business and that we have an organizational meeting—which this one is—to set the standard routine motions and to chart our way for what's going to go on in the new year.

I will be ably assisted by our legislative clerk, Joann Garbig, and our committee clerk, Chad Mariage. We'll also have an array of experts and assistants on the legislative side or whatever other legal side, whatever we need, as we proceed forward.

As for why we're here, if you allow me a couple of minutes, we in this room, the 13 of us, directly represent about 1.5 million Canadians. On behalf of them and on behalf of the other 30.5 million Canadians, we're here, in my view, to stay focused on an aim to present to the House, at the end of this and in a timely manner, an act that will effectively and realistically promote the future of Canadians' and our environment. It's going to be an emotional issue.

There are going to be strong views on all sides of the issue. My job obviously is not to participate in the sharing of those views, but to try to keep the views focused and to try to keep the process moving ahead. I would urge everybody—and I know we will—to remain respectful of differing opinions; to give everybody a good hearing to debate aggressively and sincerely; and at the end of the day, to come to an agreement that will move the yardsticks forward for all Canadians. It may not be a perfect solution for anybody on any particular side, but if we can move the yardsticks ahead in a realistic and positive manner for everybody, then I think we'll have done our job.

A couple of pieces of information are going to be available to you, for anybody who needs a refresher. One is on amending bills at committee and report stages. The other is on the conduct of legislative committees. There are some differences between legislative committees and standing committees. You can refresh yourselves on those at your leisure.

The first order of business would be the routine motions. We'll just start on them by going from top to bottom.

The first routine motion would be on a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I'm looking for somebody to move that motion.

Mr. Cullen, if you can move it, we can then move to discussion.

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

I so move, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen moves that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair and one member from each party. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am concerned. This is a very important legislative act. It's very important to Canadians. We all represent 100,000-odd people here. Quite frankly, we should have meetings in public. They should be accountable and transparent so that Canadians can see what's going on and what this committee is doing to move this legislation forward, because it deals with the health and the safety of our children and grandchildren for the next 100,000 years or so. I really think it's important that Canadians know what's going on

What we could do as a committee is have one of our first meetings at the end of January and very possibly, at that stage, have an agenda-setting meeting, so that we have tight timelines and get a report out. We'll have a list of witnesses, and everybody will come prepared. Everyone wants to work on this. All of us at the table have our own interest in the environment and an interest in this legislation, and I would like to see that be public to Canadians so that they can see what's going on and can see that we are concerned with the environment. As such, I would like to see the committee itself set the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, feel strongly that it should be the entire committee; however, what I hear from my honourable colleague Mr. Jean is that the decision between having a steering committee or doing steering and planning as a whole committee will dictate whether it would be in camera or public. It would be my assumption that it could be either, although past practice would tell us that often there is an in camera meeting.

I would like to see it be a committee of the entire legislative committee that decides on the steering committee. Again, I wouldn't presume that by deciding whether or not we're having a steering committee, we're deciding on whether or not due process is followed, or that we need to have some kind of timeline. When I was listening to Mr. Jean, I got the impression that not opting for this form of steering committee—and I would not support this motion, because I think it's better to have the entire committee set the agenda—does not in any way presume that it will be in camera or public, or that indeed it will define what timelines this legislative committee is going to adhere to. That's something this committee will have to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, that's understood.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I was encouraged to put this motion forward because some members have just come from the environment committee this term, and we opted to go for a committee at large to decide on the calendar. It's not, to this point, been a profitable experience. There's been a lot of antagonism. There's been a lot of conflict over things like scheduling and the rest.

If the sense I'm getting from the other committee members is that there's strong will to have much more profitable discussions and get to the meat of this bill more quickly and not squibble and squabble over the details of motions and drag our feet, then I'm willing to have us, as an entire committee, work together for this. I do raise my concern that the rhetoric leading up to this day has been strong from many parties. If people are willing to put that away and see something more encouraging come forward, then of course we'll sit with the committee—and I think we should do it publicly—and get on with it. I don't think Canadians sent us here to spend a lot of time worrying over details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My arguments on this motion will also underscore and clarify the Bloc's commitment, here on this committee. As we are a legislative committee, I believe that it is our duty to delve into the substance of the matter. C-30 deals with important issues that we must discuss and debate. It is my hope that this committee will focus on the real issues, and allow another entity, such as a steering committee, to deal with planning and organization. This legislative committee has too much work to do on Bill C-30, to be able to tend to matters that can very well be looked after by a steering committee.

It is entirely up to the committee to decide whether or not it wishes its discussions on planning, organization and details held in public, within a committee of the whole. Nonetheless, I believe that we can be much more effective if we refer these technical discussions to a steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Oui, je comprends cela.

Before I go to Mr. Warawa, I'll just point out that if we went one way with the committee as a whole, we would always have the option of establishing a subcommittee at a later time if it was deemed that the process we'd adopted wasn't working.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's the point I was going to make.

I appreciate the comments of Mr. Bigras and Mr. Cullen about why they would like to see the steering committee. I would agree that in the previous committees we've sat on, there were some problems. I think this morning if we set out a framework, a structure that is fair and that provides for a good dialogue, and if we do our job really well this morning, we'll eliminate a lot of the problems that we saw at the environment committee. But if a problem exists down the road, then we could again reconsider a steering committee.

Hopefully we can, as Mr. Jean pointed out, not seek discussion in camera. I think it's very important that initially we do everything out in the open and hopefully, if at all possible, keep the whole process in the public domain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, chair.

Just as an observation from someone who's sat on Bill C-2--and this is perhaps unsolicited input--what happened with Bill C-2 is that there was a steering committee, and we know the breadth and the scope and the intensity of Bill C-2. There was a fairly grand scale of input from everyone, certainly numerous people in terms of witnesses, etc.

One of the things it benefited from was a steering committee, simply put, to put the administrative framework in place, as opposed to what some might see as hearing from Canadians in camera. It was simply to address the administrative concerns. Not that this is the same scope as Bill C-2, but certainly in terms of importance, in terms of the legislation, it is similar, as are the concerns that people have of getting things done and getting results. So just as a model, Bill C-2 benefited from that experience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

One of my main focuses is that one thing I have learned in my short time here, two years, is that everybody does really want what's best for Canadians. But I think not to have the entire input from, for instance, the oil sands or from Newfoundland or from Quebec or from British Columbia in the steering committee leaves a chance that we're going to miss some Canadians in some part of this country who could provide an input. Because that's what I do; I represent the people in northern Alberta, just as you represent the people in northern British Columbia and Ontario.

From my perspective, I think if we kept short, sharp focus on the agenda in this committee we would make sure we don't miss anything that is necessary to cover particular parts. I have learned a tremendous amount about different areas and territories of this country just from talking to everyone in this room and other MPs. I think if we don't do that in the steering committee, if we don't allow that input, we will be missing out on valuable information that could actually help us.

That is my point. It's such an important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm probably saying something that everybody's already well aware of, but I would just point out that any decision of a steering committee, were we to have one, would have to come back to the full committee anyway. So in essence, by not having a steering committee, you can look at it and say it may streamline things, because everybody will have been at the table that first go-through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Are we ready for the question? The motion reads: “That the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair and one member of each party.”

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The second routine motion relates to the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament, and the motion reads: “That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.”

Do we have a mover to that motion?

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

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'd like to call forward Mr. Tim Williams, who will fulfill that role in able fashion, I'm sure.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Just for clarification, the motion that was just carried was for the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament? Is that what we just passed?

Okay, so the next will be dealing with quorum, is that correct? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, the next routine motion relates to reduced quorum, and the motion as it's presented says: “That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.”

Do we have a mover of that motion? No?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your preparing the agenda for us, through the clerk. I've looked in the procedure of Marleau and Montpetit just to see what the norm is, and on page 848—