Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I call the meeting to order, and I would ask the media to take their leave.

I want to welcome you all to the 19th meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. The easy part is over. This is where the recycled rubber hits the road.

I want to say at the beginning that in the process, we have a lot of expertise in the room. I intend to be methodical as we go through this, and rely on this expertise that we have in the room, both at the front and at the back. We have some members from Environment Canada here today. They are John Moffet and Michel Arès. Phil Blagden is here from Health Canada. We'll also have other officials from NRCan and Transport Canada here as we need them, as we go along.

You also have a document called “Bill C-30 Clause-by-Clause for Members”. That's from the department, and it is the department's expertise on the bill.

I would also like to share some information with committee members before we proceed with the clause-by-clause study of this bill. As you know, there is a possibility that divisions on certain clauses, amendments or subamendments may result in tied votes, at which point I will be asked to deliver a casting vote.

The issue of the casting vote is explained on pages 268 and 269 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Therefore, without anticipating any results in clause-by-clause, I want to inform members that if there are tied votes on clauses of the bill, I will vote in the affirmative in order to leave the bill in its existing form. If there are tied votes on amendments or subamendments, the chair will vote in the negative in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment, either here in committee or in the House at report stage.

Finally, I intend to notify the Speaker of any casting votes delivered on amendments. Normally, the Speaker will not select, at report stage, any motions that are defeated in committee. However, the Speaker does exercise a discretionary power of selection, and I intend to provide him with as much information as possible on which to base his selection decisions for report stage in the House. I trust this information will assist the committee in the decision-making process on this bill.

We're now going to embark on the detailed clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30. I'd like to take a minute to ensure that committee members have the documents they will need. I think they do.

At the end of last week, 66 amendments had been received by the clerk. These were packaged into a binder and distributed to members first thing on Monday morning, March 19. One additional amendment was received from the NDP after the binders were sent out, and this has just now been distributed this morning. Earlier this morning, we received 34 amendments from the Liberal Party. We are advised that they are to replace the Liberal amendments currently found in your binders. These have been copied, and I believe you have been given them.

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

For clarity, Mr. Chair, on the 34 new Liberal amendments, did you say “replace”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

They are replacing the amendments that were in the binder you were given on Monday.

Is that the case?

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

So all the amendments that we've been reviewing that the Liberals submitted are no longer....

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

They are replaced by the new package that you just got.

Does everybody have the package of amendments?

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet, Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs , Department of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, the departmental staff members don't have the most recent amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

They're making more copies as we speak.

Mr. Jean.

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

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that it's very important for all of us in the room that the department receives them, so that they can provide any advice we need. I see that they do have them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

They have them now. We're all dealing with these at the moment. Mr. Moffet has a copy now for Mr. Arès.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I understand, Mr. Chairman, what the Liberal Party has just done. However we have just now received the amendments being tabled. It is therefore difficult for us to analyze their breadth. It seems the officials do not have the documents either. I do not know what to say. It seems to me that we had set a deadline, that of March 15, for submitting amendments, precisely in order for committee members to be able to study them.

I agree that it is possible to submit new amendments. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that these are new amendments that have not been analyzed by the parties nor by the members who will perhaps have to take a position on them as early as today.

This shows a lack of generosity, to say the least.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Along those lines, certainly our ability to consider and pass judgment on these amendments from the Liberals is impossible today. I wouldn't mind a little explanation from our colleagues as to why, with very firm timelines and dates that we pushed back, they would scrap all amendments and bring a whole bunch of new ones. It speaks of ill faith in the negotiation of this to table 34 new amendments today, many of them substantive and large, blowing the deadline that the committee has agreed to, including the members from that party.

I think an explanation is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I don't disagree.

Before I go to Mr. Warawa, I'd just point out that amendments to Bill C-30 are to be submitted to the clerk of the committee prior to clause-by-clause consideration, without limiting the ability to present additional amendments at the meeting itself. However, your point is well taken.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Just to elaborate on the points being made, the different amendments, the 66 amendments that you spoke of, we received on the morning of the 19th. And it was very difficult to go through that. A lot of time was spent, I'm sure, by all of us on the committee reading and immersed in the implications of each of the amendments so we would be ready today. Now, as we arrive, to receive another 34 creates a big problem for this committee moving forward. We do have commitments to move forward.

I hope this is not another delay tactic we're seeing from the Liberal Party. I'm very disappointed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Godfrey, do you have a comment?

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I'm very concerned about the amendments. I realize the regulations and rules we have to allow those amendments to be presented today. I don't know about anybody else. Maybe other people have a more enjoyable life than I have, but I spent the last three or four days poring over the amendments. This is a new committee for me, and I have several questions, certainly for the officials of the department.

I find it strange here, now. I'm just concerned, number one, about the fact that we have these 34 new amendments. How are we going to proceed on a clause-by-clause basis? Are these all going to be in the order in which they're presented in the binder we received? It just creates some chaos for me, as a member. And I'm concerned about how we're going to proceed today with the plan we had in place for today, now that we have these amendments.

It is lack of good faith, I think, to present these amendments. If we had one or two new amendments presented today, that would be something we could deal with, but to have 34 laid on us begs the question of how we proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey, may we have an explanation?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

There are two substantive new amendments that are put forward in the package. The first deals with the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, and it is based on the hearings we had previously. The proposal is to incorporate the work we were doing on that into Bill C-30, because the occasion has presented itself. That's the first substantive amendment, and it is the one that affects today's work, because it comes early in the proceedings.

The other substantive one has to do with the carbon budget, which was announced by Mr. Dion last Friday. We thought that to flesh out the references to large final emitters in Bill C-30 would be helpful.

Those are the two substantive new amendments. Many of the other amendments you have seen before. It's simply a question of renumbering the existing amendments that we had pre-submitted. There were some consequences from submitting these two new amendments.

The good news is that most of that will come later in our proceedings. That is to say, if we're going to proceed on the basis of the bill as it's currently constructed, the only new one we have to deal with this morning, we suspect, has to do with the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

We do apologize, of course, to committee members for this, because these are new developments, but they're not 34 new amendments. They're really two big new amendments with consequences for numbering and so on. Most of those consequences will be delayed to future meetings because of where they occur. The only one that affects today's discussion is the insertion of the concept of the Commissioner for the Environmental and Sustainable Development, which we have discussed at length in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean, Mr. Cullen, and then I'd like to move on, if we can.

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

I think we're stuck with them at this stage, giving regard to the circumstances, although I would suggest that all members of this committee show some flexibility and compromise toward these particular amendments and others that may be more appropriate to be put at the end of the legislation. If we as committee members decide to do so, I would suggest that maybe, very possibly, it would give us an opportunity to have some sober second thought on them and give us an opportunity to dissect and think about them.

We have a very important act in front of us. Canadians expect us to do a good job. I would hate to see something slide through that is not appropriate and not in the best interests of Canadians. As a result, I suggest that all members of this committee be flexible on this. If one of us says “Give us an opportunity to think about it”, we should put it to the end, or put it to somewhere beyond, so that we have an opportunity to do so.

Would that be agreeable to the members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Well, I think it's in everybody's best interests, especially Canadians' best interests, if we do this in as cooperative and productive a manner as possible. It's incumbent on everybody here to do that.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Following along that line, I have a small question, through you, for Mr. Godfrey. Depending on his answer, I'd like to make a comment.

With regard to this new amendment you've brought today, on the Commissioner for the Environment in particular, is that meant to be early on in the bill? And was it your intention for it to be heard today?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That's right, Mr. Chairman. We think the logical place for it is early on in the bill.

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

Sorry, but just to be clear, was it meant to be heard and discussed today?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes.