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

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

Obviously we don't have the NGOs here to ask them a question, but first of all I'd like to know why it's four weeks. Is it in order that it be done before the budget? I thought that, but Mr. Jean saying we could meet in April as well suggests that the idea is not necessarily to get this done before the budget. If this issue is so great in the eyes of the government, which it is for the opposition, then maybe the budget can be moved back a couple of weeks to accommodate our attempt to deal properly with this issue.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, if we want to advance on this, that we get the easy things done first. We agreed to a schedule of days and hours. In terms of the themes and so on, we should maybe work on those after we've heard from the departmental officials who describe the bill to us in its entirety. I don't mean the minister necessarily, because that will bring more political spin to the issue. I'd like an overview of the bill from those who know the bill best. Then we can deal with themes and witnesses and take that kind of rational approach to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I appreciate Mr. Scarpaleggia's intention here.

The thing for committee members to remind themselves is that deferral to the government's so-called power on this bill must not be made. The very fact that they sit in minority on this committee allows us the capacity to change what we will. It was accepted prior to second reading. We have not agreed to the intention or the spirit or anything of this bill. In a sense, we have a template before us that we can alter in any way we wish. The reason we chose the themes was because they were based on what this committee has done in the past--working on climate change and these issues. These themes have come up again and again.

In the spirit of Mr. Scarpaleggia's intention to move forward, again, I have this motion before the committee for us to get started. If we get to the third set of witnesses and there's some glaring error and we need to have an extra meeting or make some accommodation, of course we're open and willing to hear those testimonies. But for goodness sake, if Canadians have urgency on this--and we have all spoken with such urgency--then why not accept this as a starting piece?

Let us begin. Let us get into the work and move on, because we are not progressing the fight against climate change at all with this conversation. The conversation needs to be about the substance. We've tried to propose the substance in a fair way. If there are other things that don't fit, then talk to us about it. But to come here with no other work plans or no other amendments--we must start somewhere. We think this is a healthy place to start, and we think we have the support of many outside of this room to do such a thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really pleased to have heard my colleague Mr. Jean a moment ago. It's the clearest statement I've heard in a year about the government's climate change plan.

I just heard two things. I want to make sure, and I'm not being facetious at all, and this is helpful in the context of the journey we're going on. Bill C-30 is the plan--the beginning, the middle, and the end of the plan. You held up a document and said that Bill C-30 is the plan. That's the government's plan on climate change, right? I think I heard that.

Second, I also heard that climate change was now the top priority of the Government of Canada.

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

Clean air.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Clean air is the top priority of the Government of Canada.

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

You heard it twice, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Climate change was the top priority for all parliamentarians, I think Mr. Jean also said, as well as for the government. We're getting somewhere. That's very useful; that's very helpful. I'd like to hear more from the government, if it's possible, Mr. Chair, today or in early meetings, as to how the thigh bone connects to the knee bone and the knee bone connects to the leg bone. How, for example, would we deal with one of the amendments put forward by the ENGO community, which is to reduce greenhouse gases by 80%, using 1990 as a baseline, by 2050? That's a very interesting and aggressive target. We're going to want to hear from an awful lot of witnesses on that.

But I need to hear more from the government in terms of how Bill C-30, being the clean air plan, the government's plan, connects to energy policy. How is it going to connect to the government's transport policy plan? How is it going to connect to consumption decreases reannounced last week? We'll agree that perhaps they were jointly founded programs--EnerGuide and a few others, for example--that were reannounced last week. Where does this fit, if we consider that the country has a puzzle-like response, with pieces of the puzzle on the climate change challenge? How does this fit and connect to the other policies of the government?

If we treat this bill in isolation, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought we were supposed to be having a discussion on an amendment to a work plan, not a general discussion. I'd like the discussion to get around to whether or not.... We were talking about our meeting schedule as an amendment to a work plan, not having a general discussion, Mr. Chair. I'd like to get back to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

As a friendly amendment, we're actually discussing the main motion.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It was accepted as a friendly amendment, then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It was accepted as a friendly amendment, so we are discussing the main motion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the point I'm trying to raise here is that it would be really helpful for us as legislators to see what the plan looks like when its constituent pieces are put together. Because I would dare submit now, given the state of Bill C-30 and what we might possibly do to it, that this Bill C-30 does not make a climate change plan for this country. It's not even close.

So I need to hear more from the government, from the parliamentary secretary, perhaps through the minister in due course when he shows, how this connects and what part of the puzzle we are dealing with so we can know. When witnesses show up here, trust me, they're going to raise these questions. They're going to ask these questions whether we want them to or not. They're going to be asked to comment or they're going to want to comment themselves on how Bill C-30 does or does not connect to the National Energy Board's recent review of energy policy in the country. They're going to ask how it connects, Mr. Chair, to a fourfold or fivefold potential increase in the oil sands, and that's what I'd like to hear more about.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm hearing, unless I'm wrong, that we are trying to get to a schedule that will encompass a number of topics that will evolve as we go along. I think that's what I'm hearing it's getting towards.

Mr. Bigras, you're next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is good that we are having this discussion, but perhaps it would have been better had we adopted the motion on the steering committee right from the outset. At the end of the day, perhaps it is better we do things this way. Furthermore, we can't leave here, even with a steering committee, without a general idea of this committee's mandate, if indeed it is ever struck.

As I said, we want to work intensively. I'm afraid, however, given the number of witnesses we have here, that we won't be able to hear from everybody who wants to be heard, and yet, hearing them all is part of the duty we have to be transparent. If you take a look at the NDP's proposal, I think there's a way we can work out a timetable. We could quite easily hear from witnesses for five weeks, in other words our committee would start with today's witnesses and continue through till the 2nd of March. We could set aside the two recess weeks to give us time to really digest the testimony we will have heard up until that point, and to prepare amendments. When we're back, in the week beginning March 19, we could begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30.

I don't think we'll have the timetable we expected, in other words a study of approximately four months, but we would be giving ourselves five weeks to listen to witnesses and digest the information we will have heard. In the two-week recess, we'd work on any amendments. After the recess, we could start the clause-by-clause consideration. The steering committee, based on this framework, could draw up a list of topics and identify potential witnesses.

I think that that would be a compromise between what some people seem to want to do, that is have Bill C-30 passed quickly, and a very in-depth study which would take us four or five months, which is what some other members would prefer. There is a compromise position we can reach, and in my opinion, that middle ground is what we have got to look for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras, are you proposing another amendment to the timeline, or was that in the form of a general discussion?

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

It's not a formal suggestion. I'm just throwing the idea out there. If I feel people are receptive to it, I'll propose an amendment in due course, but it might be better for us to have a discussion first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So for now it's just discussion. I'll just remind folks that if we do form a subcommittee, whatever the subcommittee comes up with has to come back to the main committee in any event, so the main committee always has control.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the comments from Mr. Bigras. I think it's showing he does want to move forward and is listening to the urgency of the situation. So I appreciate the comments. It's trying to find the middle ground, and I support that, but it's not my motion. It would be Mr. Cullen's motion, and it's his decision as to whether or not that would be considered a friendly amendment.

I think we need to be flexible, too. If we have a target of dealing with Bill C-30 in a timely fashion, and not trying to stall, which I suspect could be interpreted as what's happening here.... If this is moved forward quickly, and, still being flexible, we found that we needed to hear from another group of witnesses and we went into the March break week, I would suggest that we seriously consider it.

At this point I understand, Mr. Bigras, that what you're saying is we now lengthen it two weeks and we have the March break, and before we go clause by clause we give ourselves the chance to digest past information and current information, and then move forward aggressively so at the end of March we would be done. What you're proposing extends it approximately one month, but I think it's a compromise position and still deals with things on the issue of Bill C-30 on an urgent basis. I think it's a good compromise.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I think Mr. Warawa very usefully picked up on a suggestion by Mr. Manning that we need to use the word “flexibility” quite handily. We need to see where we are after the first round of witnesses to give ourselves the possibility to extend, as Mr. Warawa has outlined. We may discover subjects that need further exploration. I want to endorse that concept of flexibility so we're not locked into a notion that we absolutely have to do clause-by-clause after we get back from the March break. It may happen, but....

The other part from Monsieur Bigras....

I have another question to ask him, as two parts of the proposal he just made concern the number of weeks. We still haven't decided on the number of meetings per week, that's another issue. You raised some technical points about our schedule and asked if it was possible to have five meetings per week.

Did you agree to the proposal, that is Mondays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., or is there some other matter which still hasn't been resolved, in your opinion?

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

I said that there was no way we would settle the number of hours and days issue without knowing exactly what that means. I would feel railroaded today if we had to vote on a motion on the previously amended hours, because I think we would be moving too quickly.

Mr. Cullen's motion is starting to get very appealing. We must make sure we hear as many witnesses as possible within the schedule we adopt. We can hold five hearings to listen to witnesses before the break and then, when we get back on the 19th, we can proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Working within this framework, the steering committee would be able to make a proposal to the committee based on what is required, and determe whether we sit once, twice, or three times.

It is important we work out acceptable parameters today so that the steering committee will have a framework to work with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'll just remind everybody that the committee, of course, is the master of its own fate, and if the committee's work is going expeditiously, then it will finish in a certain time. If the committee needs extra time to consider more witnesses or whatever, then that's up to the committee to make that determination at the time. So there is flexibility, because the flexibility is you folks.

Mr. Holland.