Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

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

I think what Mr. Bigras is getting at is that if we're going to have a cooperative arrangement where we try to work together to advance the cause of the environment, both on fighting climate change and on fighting pollution, what we need to know before we can get into it is, for example, the intention of the government. That is to say, if they have withdrawn this bill or said it's all up for discussion, we need to know what parts of it they're going to change. We need to know what their plan is, both on the climate side and on every other side, and how that fits in with the legislation. It must be the case, by the fact that they have turned it over to this committee, that they are unsatisfied with the original draft. Otherwise, they wouldn't have turned it back to the committee. They have asked us to rewrite.

Before we can do that, we need to know what their dissatisfactions are about and what concessions and concerns they have so we then may know when to devote our time to issues on which there's going to be genuine disagreement. If it turns out that there is agreement on points, we don't need to have so many witnesses; we don't need to go on about them so long. But we really can't go on a fishing expedition trying to guess by putting up motions and asking where you are on this without knowing the plans of the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government believes Bill C-30 is a very good piece of legislation. Bill C-2 went to a legislative committee, and Bill C-30 has now been sent to a legislative committee. We are open to input on how to make it better. Many of the opposition members have clearly said they would like to have an opportunity to make Bill C-30 better and that's why it's at committee.

We began the meeting with comments that many have already been down this path and have received information from witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Cullen presented a motion to have previous witness testimony and discussion included at this committee. I think that was a good choice. I don't think we need to spend hours, weeks, or months going over new testimony when we've already heard relevant testimony.

What I'm looking forward to is working together with other members of the committee and hearing their recommendations on how we can move forward. I'm hoping we can move this forward quickly. I'm hoping we meet as often as necessary so that we can have this dealt with and maybe do clause-by-clause within a few weeks.

As I've said from the outset, this is not here for a rewrite, it's here to be strengthened. We look forward to input from select witnesses and also members of the committee. If we need to make it stronger, then we're open to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

I was going to mention pretty much what Mr. Warawa said, except of course that we went a full 17 minutes without any partisan shot, until the Liberals.

We are looking to cooperate and do what's necessary to make this a much better piece of legislation, for the safety and security of Canadians' health. That's what's important to this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I suspect I will do this fairly often during the proceedings, but I would appreciate no partisan shots. I know that's probably unrealistic, but keep trying--all sides.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I agree with you, Mr. Chair. I think we have to rise above partisan differences.

I may be touching on Mr. Bigras' and Mr. Godfrey's point, but I think we will have philosophical differences. We have to do the philosophical groundwork, and we have to adopt a thematic approach, such as what is proposed here. I don't think we can dive right into the nuts and bolts. This bill was referred to us before second reading because there are philosophical issues and issues of principle. We should take a philosophical and thematic approach at the beginning, and then we'll get into the nuts and bolts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

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

The government made a proposal. The spirit in which we want to work in this committee consists in finding a balance between the urgent need to take action, while ensuring that we have every means at our disposal to combat climate change, and the transparency and openness that we need to hear as many witnesses as possible. This is what I meant regarding the approach that we should choose.

As far as we are concerned, we agree that we must use every means at our disposal. This must be done within a limited period of time, and not in the medium term. We must act quickly, but even if we have all the testimony from the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Natural Resources, our task consists in hearing a series of witnesses regarding Bill C-30. In my opinion, this is the balance that we must seek to establish between the urgency of acting in the face of climate change on the one hand, and transparency on the other hand. Our selection of witnesses and our choice of dates for the meetings should be based on these principles.

We did not have an opportunity to debate this bill in the House of Commons. Therefore, we must make sure that we can get the work done in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Bigras mentioned that we have a duty to hear from witnesses. I agree, but we can also look at that in a very effective way. To bring clarity, I would suggest that one of those first witnesses could be the minister himself, and then people from the department. We can ask them why Bill C-30 was drafted the way it was. That would get us off to a fairly quick start.

The minister has made it clear that he's available when the committee would like him to come, and he's looking forward to coming here at an early opportunity. So we could start with the minister; it could be this week. As I said previously, I'm willing to work as hard and as long as is necessary to see this not in a prolonged process but in a very effective and speedy process. Canadians are asking for a quick resolution to this. There's an urgency on this file. Many of us around this table have shared the urgency of dealing with the environmental file.

I hope Mr. Bigras is not suggesting a long and protracted process, but a very effective and efficient and quick process.

A question to you, through the chair, Mr. Bigras: would you like to have a quick or a long process?

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

I think that as we study this bill we can limit the time we take while hearing as many witnesses as possible. That, in my view, is quite doable. We will see what decision we come up with. However, I would not want this committee's efficiency to be judged simply on the minister's presentation and the testimony of officials before the committee. I think we must broaden the process. We are in a position to do it.

We are just starting this parliamentary session, and we have lot of energy. If necessary, we can hold more intensive hearings. I believe that we can conclude our study of the bill fairly quickly, and demonstrate transparency by hearing as many witnesses as possible.

This bill has not been debated in the House of Commons. Of course, as Mr. Cullen said earlier, we could use previous testimony for information purposes. However, I would not want that existing testimony to prevent us from inviting important witnesses to appear in the context of our study of Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To deal with our witness list, which is long--and it seems as if we have a possibility of spending a fair bit of time on this piece of legislation--and the fact that Canadians want action as soon as possible and that the House is sitting for the full month of February, it might be in the best interest of all of us to have as many meetings as possible during that time. At the end of February, before we go to our March break, there's a possibility of reassessing, seeing how we're doing on this list of witnesses, seeing how we're doing with regard to moving forward. We're looking at maybe five weeks down the road. We'll propose meetings for a number of days coming up and then we'll see how we're doing.

To sit here now and to think we can answer all those questions that are being laid on the table, with the list that we have here, it's virtually impossible to do--organizing this list and giving our people time to get these witnesses to the table, especially people who are outside the Ottawa area. I think it's important that we set a schedule for meetings, start into our meetings as soon as possible, see how we're doing over a period of time, and maybe reassess before we go to March break to see how we're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll suggest something I think might move us along, which would hopefully be somewhat refreshing.

Every party in this place has identified this committee and this process as most significant. I've heard from all parties now a willingness to do the heavy lifting, to work hard to see as many committee meetings in a week as are necessary. One of the ways we've suggested--and I believe members of the committee all have a proposed workplan that we put forward--was to take six specific topics or themes that we can study. To answer Mr. Manning's concern, I think we can nail down a process that works for this committee.

These are the central themes we've seen come again and again through all the testimony we've heard before. It's effective; it's transparent. It's for the Canadian people to see and judge us by, but we must act as if they were at our very heels on this legislation. We cannot simply sit back and have large philosophical debates about the possibility or the need to act. The need to act is in front of us. The will to act must come from each of us sitting in the chairs around this table.

We have the capacity to call these witnesses and to do a thorough and complete study, and if opposition members and government members have not come forward with prepared amendments or considered amendments, then I simply must beg what we've been doing for the last eight weeks.

Committee members are here to do a job and to get the right job done. Each party has considered this particular issue for a number of years. Clearly our work is in front of us and our opportunity is now. To take that opportunity rather than delay and dither is the only choice available to us.

The proposed work plan, we believe, is a sensible one. It puts out six specific topics and meetings with witnesses who will cover the range of issues dealt with by Bill C-30, including some other options that don't even exist in Bill C-30 right now. It will rewrite this bill to our satisfaction and present it back to the House in a timely fashion.

We believe it's the responsible thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We're just running off copies of that.

I believe it was sent to all committee members previously, but we'll just run off some extra copies so that you can refer to it.

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

That's appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's a suggested start point, and we need a suggested start point to leap off from.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I have a question to Mr. Cullen.

I've looked at your proposed work plan. I think it merits discussion and would ask if you're to the point of wanting to make a motion. Then we could have some discussion. Is that what you're intending?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

First we'll go to Mr. Cullen for your response.

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

Sure. Obviously there'll have to be a discussion about what we're proposing. We're not proposing it as a fait accompli, but as something for us to start with in order to have substantive conversation.

If it's best through a proposed motion, then I'll do that if the committee members want to have some discussion about the format, but clearly we can't leave this meeting room without having decided on a course of action, and this is a proposed course of action.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, we'll use whatever format is best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've having a ping-pong game here. We're ping-ponging back from one subject to another, Mr. Chair. I want to come back to the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Bigras.

I think everybody at this committee is seized with the importance of trying to come up with an outcome that makes sense for the country. It is facile and it is dismissive to speak of this committee's work as something that can be hurried. Bill C-2 took months of negotiations. Hundreds of amendments were considered. It was an important piece of legislation that passed through all-party support.

No one is trying to delay this. This is the 21st-century challenge of the hugest proportions. Here is our challenge going forward, as I see it, going back to Mr. Bigras's comments: I don't know how this bill fits into the government's plan. I haven't seen a plan. I am still trying to divine a plan.

I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's famous expression that when you come to a fork in the road, take it. I'm just not sure what fork we're supposed to be taking.

I don't know whether this Bill C-30 is in the context of Kyoto, or not in the context of Kyoto. I don't know how this connects to the government's ongoing discussions, for example, on the expansion of the oil sands, if there are such discussions. I don't know how this Bill C-30 fits with the expansion of nuclear power, if there are such plans. For us to assume that it can be hurried through at this level of complexity and to suggest that it might all have been heard before is not necessarily true. It's not right to speak like this.

Canadians know this is the challenge of the 21st century, and they want to see us come up with a reasonable plan that does not force us to commit economic hara-kiri while at the same time achieving our domestic reductions, Mr. Chairman, and participating internationally as good international citizens. So I'd like to have a generalized discussion, to pick up on what our colleague from the Bloc Québécois has put forward,

a general discussion on themes, and on the direction in which we are going. That will not take more than half an hour. The only answer I have heard the government giving in the past 30 minutes is that it expects to make no changes to the bill. I would like the government to say more about its plan.

This is not a question of partisanship. The point is to hear the government talk about its plan, if there is a plan. This is the government's bill. Where are we going with it?

As my colleague Mr. Godfrey said, if we're going on a high seas fishing expedition and we're going to land any species, I don't think that's the right process.

I'd like to hear from the government on this. How does this fit in? Where is this going? What do you contemplate? When do you intend to regulate? You published a notice of intent to regulate in the fall. I'm sorry, but with all due respect, big deal. Governments do this all the time, at all levels of government.

Where are we going? Where do you see us going? Canadians want to know where we're going. Need I remind you, you're in charge. Where are you taking this nation-state? Are we inside of Kyoto or are we out of Kyoto? These are the kinds of discussions that have to be held before we get into the four corners of this draft statute. Having a discussion about witnesses here or there is not going to help us achieve what we want to achieve until we get a generalized and more clear understanding of what journey we're on here.

To suggest that it's only the opposition parties who are compelling this debate on Bill C-30 is wrong. It's false. It's not true. Everybody in the House of Commons and all parties want to see this move forward productively. So please help me as a single member of Parliament and help all Canadians understand where we're going. I think that's part of what we ought to be doing before we get into other questions, such as should we have five meetings a week? Should we have 40 or 60 witnesses? Has it been said before elsewhere, in some other committee?

With all due respect, even if it's been said somewhere else in another committee, it may not apply to the context of this bill. That's our job as parliamentarians. As a lawyer I wouldn't do that. Those of us with legal training wouldn't do that. It is against the code of ethics.

So this is my plea: can I please hear something from the government in terms of where this journey is supposed to take us? Where do we contemplate being? Are we working towards budget deadlines? If we are, then say so, for the love of God. Tell the Canadian people where we're going. If you're not able to tell us where we're going, perhaps we should run it back up the flagpole, hear from the minister or the Prime Minister, and find out what the authority of this committee is purported to be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I might stand to be corrected, but I think it was Walt Whitman who said to take the fork in the road. But I won't quibble.

Mr. Godfrey.