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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So are we nodding in agreement to move forward? There are measures that can be taken by anybody who has an opposite view of anything that might happen.

I'm glad we had that little chat.

In accordance with Standing Order 75(1), clause 1 of this bill is postponed to the end of our examination, as it is the short title of the bill.

I now call the amendment to clause 1, which is amendment LIB-2 in the package you received this morning. I would call upon Mr. McGuinty to move it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm glad we're back on the agenda. Terrific.

First of all, I'm not going to take the time to read the entire amendment, Mr. Chair, but I do move it, and I'd like to say a few words about it, if I could, to explain to Canadians who might be watching and those who are interested, and those here who are working on Bill C-30 together, what the import of this bill is.

In the course of the work of this committee, Mr. Chair, Liberal members have come to the same conclusion that the majority of members in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development came to on February 27. That is, if this country is going to take the 21st century challenges of the environment seriously, we need a fully independent environment commissioner. Currently, the environment commissioner is an employee of the Office of the Auditor General and reports to it and not to Parliament. This is a subject that has been addressed in detail by many esteemed witnesses, Mr. Chair, before the environment committee. For example, Mr. Jim MacNeill, the former secretary general of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Commission, wrote a letter that quite bluntly stated:

I was extremely disturbed to learn that the Auditor General had recently dismissed the incumbent Commissioner from office. In my view, this action has potentially very damaging implications for the visibility, autonomy, responsibility and accountability to Parliament of future Commissioners and their Office.

He gives his complete support to the idea of a fully independent environment commissioner. I think a letter that's this direct, Mr. Chair, from a person of his character, is clearly a call to action.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, Madam Gélinas, the most recent environment commissioner, sent a persuasive letter to the environment committee on this very subject. Some of the operative paragraphs and passages from her letter go as follows:

If we examine the duties of other commissioners (Official Languages, Ethics, Information, Privacy, etc.), we find that in addition to carrying out investigations, these officials have a duty to promote and encourage best practices, without however becoming merely an advocate for one particular side.

She goes on and makes the comment that

Attaching the CESD’s position to the Office of the Auditor General was not intended to restrict the CESD’s mission and role to that of an auditor. And yet, this is what the position has become.

She goes on further to say:

The recent direction taken by the Auditor General, Mrs. Fraser--aimed, among other things, at integrating the work of the CESD group into her own reports and thereby eliminating the Commissioner’s report as we have known it since the position was created--leads me to believe that the risk is now real and that this fragile equilibrium is going to be disrupted.

I think, Mr. Chair, perhaps the most telling point of all is where she says:

A commissioner must be able to offer a vision, an approach, a way of acting and a general orientation. He or she must be able to debate, to promote activities, to work with departments in other ways than simply through audits.

Finally, she writes, for all members here to hear, especially those members who hold her work in such high esteem, as, for example, the Minister of the Environment has--and rightly so--offering to nominate her to the Order of Canada when she was removed from her duties, that:

If Canada wants the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development to exercise his or her role fully, he or she must be independent of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, because the two mandates are incompatible.

As you may recall, Mr. Chair, not too long ago the Minister of the Environment said--and I repeat--that he was so impressed with the work of Madam Gélinas that she should be appointed a member of the Order of Canada. He went further by saying he would nominate her personally. I fully agree.

I agree with Madam Gélinas' testimony; the environment committee agrees with it. It is time to take action now before the next environment commissioner is selected. Our motion lays out the essentials of an independent agent of Parliament, a separate office with a separate budget, full discretion for hiring and firing staff, and a mandate to investigate and report on any issue within the commissioner's jurisdiction. That is the state or integrity of the environment in Canada and the implementation of sustainable development in the federal government.

Members will see, Mr. Chair, that the provisions are very carefully circumscribed, just as they are for existing agents of Parliament such as the ethics commissioner and the official languages commissioner. If we would like to get something done on the very first day that we begin to rewrite the so-called Clean Air Act, in my view, this would be the way to begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm just wondering if Mr. McGuinty is going to speak to the rest of his amendments or just the two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're just dealing with amendment L-2 at the moment.

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

Amendment L-2 is 10 pages long, about 3,000 words of legal text. That's the amendment you're speaking of, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're speaking of L-2.

I have a question for Mr. McGuinty.

Are these consequential to L-32 and L-33...the Auditor General Act and the coming into force?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes, they are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The decision on L-2 would apply to amendments L-32 and L-33.

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, subsequent to what you said before, we're seeking a ruling on these amendments that have been put forward by the Liberals now that they have tabled them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Does anybody have any further discussion before I get to that?

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes. Mr. Chair, just before you get to that, I know these amendments are ten years too late for the Liberals after they implemented Kyoto, but astoundingly this one is 14 years too late. I was just rereading the Liberal red book from 1993, where they promised an independent ethics commissioner, and lo and behold, when they had the chance to do something about it, they got it wrong, Mr. Chair. They're playing a lot of catch-up. Maybe they were on the road to Damascus when they drafted this particular amendment, Mr. Chair, but I'm looking forward to your ruling.

I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Cullen.

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

The initial concerns I have with the process we are undertaking remain. Having heard your earlier considerations of this, my worry is that through this very short debate that we're now engaged in on however many pages of legal text the Liberals have proposed today, we will lose this concept in Bill C-30 of the commissioner of the environment simply due to the Liberals not having done their homework and not having brought this in a timely fashion to the committee.

I'm concerned about even this process of questioning whether it's valid or invalid or whether there are parts of concern. None of us sitting around this table.... I suspect even Liberal members of the committee haven't seen this, and we are at the point right now of passing consideration as to whether it's admissible, from the clerk's advice, or whether the committee members want to vote for this or challenge your ruling or any of those other considerations.

Here's a potentially excellent idea put in jeopardy because of some obscure delay tactic that I'm still grasping to understand on the part of the official opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I take your point. The ultimate fate of this will be the will of the committee, one way or the other.

Mr. Jean, and then Mr. Manning.

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

I need a new mike, a new earpiece. Mine doesn't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair, you mentioned that other amendments would be affected by adopting this amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, L-32 and L-33.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Could we get some clarification on exactly how, because I haven't had the time to study those. Is there anybody here who can give me some clarification on how they will affect that, subsequent to your ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty, are you prepared to address the consequential nature of amendment L-2 and its impact on L-32 and L-33?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Both are required as a result of amendment L-2. They're quite self-explanatory. Do they require an explanation?

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

What about the L-2 amendment? Can you just spend a few moments addressing some of the parts of the new amendment on L-2? Again, we haven't had time to look at those and certainly to study, as I said, those nine or ten pages of amendments. My problem is that it seems like the weekend homework has been done on the Monday morning school run, and I have a concern with that. I'm just trying to get some clarification. By accepting this amendment today, Mr. Chair, do we go forward on this clause, then? Is that the procedure here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Well, we're discussing it now.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Yes, but if we accept it today, do we accept it in its entirety, then?