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

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

The problem with the NDP model is, frankly, its incompleteness.

Our basic position--and I thought it was the position of all the opposition parties and the NGOs initially--was that this was an unnecessary piece of legislation, and that was why we rejected it. We said we actually had a piece of legislation that could do most of this. It's called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we can regulate under that. Indeed, ironically, the government can still regulate under that without even introducing the new bill, and plans to. The regulations that will be brought in are under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

When the NDP decided to change tactics and to work with the government, we said all right, we've got to be careful that whatever else we do, we do not weaken the existing legislation, the CEPA legislation, that we at least do no harm.

There are a number of issues that have been identified by the non-governmental organizations very effectively in a submission to us, and it would seem to me that the template that the NGOs have laid out has identified correctly the major concerns that we all felt in the month of October, when we collectively--that is to say the three opposition parties and the NGO community speaking unanimously--had a problem. They now have identified those issues, some of which are not flagged in the work plan. For instance, there is no reference in the work plan to the real difficulty in Bill C-30 regarding provincial equivalency agreements. There is no reference in the work plan to the real challenge of having two sets of lists, the list of toxins under CEPA and a separate list of substances that would be pulled out and identified as pollutants and greenhouse gases. Those are subjects worthy of consideration because they show major flaws in the bill that would weaken the existing CEPA provisions. They need to be dealt with.

Similarly, there is nothing in the NDP template to deal with the challenges of the notice of intent to regulate, which also has been very thoroughly criticized by the non-governmental organizations. We need to see how the notice of intent to regulate will work with the bill, because the real guts of the matter are in the notice of intent to regulate.

All of those things are very well laid out in the NGO submission. I'm not saying that we will endorse every single thing that the NGOs have said in terms of targets or anything else. I will say that I think they have correctly identified the challenges we had with the original draft of the bill, way back when, which all of us agreed on. We would have a fuller discussion of those points--incorporating, by the way, many of the points that are here, but in a fuller fashion--that the NDP has put forward. So I would offer, as an alternative way of dealing with our concerns, the things we all agreed on, which have been very well captured by the January 22 submission of the NGOs, which we could recirculate. You could borrow mine, if that would be helpful.

All I'm saying is we've got to do it seriously. We're not going to take forever on this, but let's organize it in terms of the problems we had with the bill, not in terms of general terminology about international experiences and models. It won't deal with the CEPA preamble. Are we going to make a specific reference to the Kyoto Protocol or not? We all thought we should.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to respond to some comments made by Mr. McGuinty.

He used the example of Bill C-2. I think he said that it was months dealing with that, and in actuality it was six weeks. That legislation was ten times the size and complexity of what we are dealing with in Bill C-30. Bill C-30 is a small piece of legislation, and I encourage him to read it. Hopefully he already has. This is an issue that each of us around the table has been dealing with for years. I think each of us knows the issue. Yes, we need to hear from witnesses, but for us to go on for months and months--which is what I'm interpreting is being suggested by Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Godfrey, that we go a long protracted process--is not serving our country well and could be interpreted as stalling. In fact, we need to move forward.

What Mr. Cullen is suggesting here I think is good. We are willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and if necessary right into our break in March, to move forward. So if we need to spend time--and the timelines being proposed here by Mr. Cullen I think are realistic and good--then we can achieve this. If we need more time, then I'd suggest we go right into and use our break week in March and stay here in Ottawa. What's being proposed is meeting Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and it's laid out here, beginning with the process and witness list, which could be done by steering committee in a very effective way, and then the department officials and the minister or vice versa, which could be switched.

We could be very effective this week, but right now we're experiencing lengthy discussion. Maybe after all those who want to have an opportunity to speak do so, we would also want to consider the length of speaking time, because it appears we're starting to bog down, and that's further evidence to support the need for a steering committee. I'm hoping Mr. Cullen pretty soon will make a motion, if he hasn't yet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, you're next.

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

I will be moving this as a motion, because certainly Mr. Godfrey has added a couple of things, or so he believes, to this work plan in terms of wanting to hear about equivalency, and there is space even within this work plan to allow for that, so certainly I would expect his support.

Also, the ENGOs, the non-governmental organizations he referred to, sent us all a letter on the 22nd. If I may, I will quote just one small piece from it, Chair:

We believe that all parties understand the need for urgent action on climate and clean air, so the committee should have no need for lengthy debates. A time period on the order of four weeks should be enough to debate the wording of any amendments and to consider C-30 clause by clause.

In an effort to respond to those same groups that Mr. Godfrey and Mr. McGuinty have referred to, we have put forward what we thought was a reasonable work plan. A work plan to get work done, not a series of navel-gazing exercises trying to decipher what possibly the Conservatives were thinking of when they drew up Bill C-30. I'm not interested.

If there is fear about taking this bull by the horns and making decisions about the type of economy and environment we want, then allow opposition members to express those fears. But if there is courage to act upon this and bring forward amendments they have worked on for years, both in government and now in opposition, allow them to bring those amendments forward.

I will move this motion of a work plan, which we see as reasonable, in response to the very environmental groups that Mr. Godfrey and Mr. McGuinty have called upon for support, and I suggest that their concerns can be brought into this. If extra meetings are required within this four-week period as described by the environmental groups, then so be it. We'll stay the extra time. We haven't got a problem with that. But the urgency of this is paramount. Stretching it out some months and months beyond is the equivalent of doing nothing and acting in an irresponsible way.

So I move a motion to accept the proposed work plan and the witnesses that the committee members have been sent.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Could I move a friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm just going to make sure we get this right.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On Mondays it would be from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. On Wednesdays it would be from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. On Thursdays it would be from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

It would mean a lot of work in a very short period of time, but we would then be able to achieve the goals that are set out in those timelines and show the urgency of the situation.

Would Mr. Cullen accept that as a friendly amendment? If not, I would make it an amendment.

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

Most of those times seem appropriate. The only one that might be of concern is the Thursday afternoon slot, but it seems to be open to negotiation. It would depend how other committee members feel about the work. With the quantity of meetings, if committee members are seeking more input, and time is pressing upon us...certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That's ten hours a week, which is aggressive.

[An hon. member]

It's eleven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is it eleven?

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

Yes. A three-hour meeting on Wednesday is being proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Sorry, you're right.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

My first concern—and I'm sure all committee members are the same—is that there's also the preparation that goes into having witnesses. We need to have some time to consider what the witnesses have said, be able to absorb and react to it, and then have follow-up questions. Ramming it all in together in that way is problematic in the least. I would have real reservations about that.

It really begs the question of what we're doing. It is our position that Bill C-30 is largely a very redundant piece of legislation that isn't going to do much on the issue of climate change. If the intent is to move it through with enormous haste, essentially create a placebo policy, and pretend we did something--do it in a rush so we can pretend we did something and hold something out as this placebo that really does nothing....

We can't deal with this as an island. Either we're trying to do something about climate change or we're not. If we're trying to do something about climate change, what is the plan of the government? How does Bill C-30 fit in with the plan of the government? How can we deal with this issue as a one-off or as an isolated incident?

I appreciate, as we all do, that there is work to be done and we want to get results on this issue. I do not want to create something in haste that has no significance or meaning, or doesn't do anything. So if we're here to really achieve something, then let's do it. Let's first talk about what the plan of the government is, how Bill C-30 fits in with its broader agenda to address climate change, and then debate it in that context. But to deal with it alone is foolhardy.

On dealing with that number of witnesses, I don't know how we would have the time to properly prepare for those witnesses, assimilate what they say, and follow that up with additional witnesses. It's an extremely aggressive schedule, and it smacks to me of just trying to ram this through and not being interested in substantive changes that have to happen to make it effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Just to clarify, Mr. Cullen, did you accept that as a friendly amendment? Then we'll just start discussing that amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, obviously there are concerns being expressed. The only part of the amendment I was unsure of in terms of scheduling, as I said, was the late Thursday meeting. If the four meetings were scheduled, that would work as well, or if that time were moved.

It does speak to the possible facility of a subcommittee to get some of this discussion moving a lot more quickly, but we're here now.

I'll accept the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Sorry, Mr. Bigras. I jumped over Mr. Jean before.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that we do have a plan. People keep talking about us not having a plan. Here's the plan: it's called Bill C-30, and that was the government's proposal. It's not perfect, and we accept that it's not perfect. It's just like Mr. Cullen's proposed outline, which may not be perfect. That's why we're here, and that's why the government agreed to strike this committee: to hear from all Canadians, through their parliamentarians, and so that we could hear the experience that all people have at this table.

Let's talk about that experience.

Mr. Bigras, we sat together on the environment committee in the 38th Parliament.

Mr. Cullen, we sat together on the environment committee.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, we sat together in the environment committee, and we heard all these witnesses, as did Mr. McGuinty.

Of course, Mr. McGuinty was the chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I think it was from 1995 to 1999 or something like that, but he certainly has good experience.

Mr. Watson sat with us in the 38th Parliament on the environment committee, and so did Mr. Warawa and I.

We have a huge database and people who have experience with the witnesses we've heard already, but we have to start somewhere. We want to start and we want to accomplish something. That's what this government wants to do. It does want to get results, Mr. Holland. It wants to protect the health of Canadians and clean up the environment, and you've seen that happen through some of the announcements that have been made recently.

What we don't want to do is nothing. We want to get something done, and we need to set a time schedule that may not fit for everybody. This is this government's priority, and we're hoping it is the entire Parliament's priority, to get something done for the health of Canadians. The reality is that we can make this a priority. If we see which people are not interested in pushing it forward and which people are interested in pushing it forward, I'm prepared—and I think you'll find that all government members are prepared—to sit through the March and April breaks so that we can get this done and have a better quality of life for Canadians from one end of this country to the other.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras, then Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would not like us to go too quickly, and I would not like the schedule to be established solely on the basis of an agreement between the NDP and the Conservative Party. It is very important for the schedule to be established by all political parties.

Rather than suggesting days and times, we might perhaps take a look at available time slots, bearing in mind that votes are held on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. Perhaps we could also take into account the fact that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development will continue to sit. In my view, there are a number of things we should take into account before deciding on our future business immediately, as it has been suggested we do. That is the first aspect I would like taken into account. I am quite sure that the clerk will tell us what time slots are available.

The second issue is that of witnesses. I would like to thank Mr. Cullen for his remarks. When we begin our study and establish the list of witnesses, we must of course take into account the testimony that has already been given to avoid duplication. We should agree on a principle. The principle we would support is that the committee should work more intensively on the study of Bill C-30—and that is indeed the spirit of the NDP's proposal. However, I would have great difficulty in supporting the motion moved by the NDP and amended by the Conservative Party, a motion that would rush us and compress the schedule, without knowing exactly what that would involve.

I believe that we can strike a balance between moving quickly and conducting an intensive study. I am among those who believe we can work three days a week on this bill, even though I am not convinced that it will suit me in the end. We can go quickly while hearing as many witnesses as possible, but we should be cautious before approving a schedule that might have a number of consequences, because we failed to take certain factors into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Chair, my question was really to Mr. Cullen regarding his statement that NGOs feel this should be done in four weeks. Did I understand correctly?

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

I was quoting from a letter they sent to all committee members on January 22.