Environment Committee on June 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I call this meeting to order.

First of all, to our witnesses, welcome, and we look forward to your interventions.

We do have a bit of committee business first, and I apologize if it takes a bit longer than what we had hoped. But because several members are going to have to leave shortly, near the end of the session, we have agreed that we would deal with this committee item first. So if you can relax, we will be with you very shortly.

Committee members, I think you all have the motion put by Mr. Cullen on the back of the agenda. We would intend to deal with that motion at this point.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be moving that this motion is out of order. With your permission, I would like to present my reasons why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, the clerk advises me that the motion has to be on the floor, and then you can make your motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Sorry, I thought the item on the floor at this point was the motion. Did I misunderstand?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If you could formally move it, Mr. Cullen, then we could enter into debate.

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

I'd like to move this motion, Chair, and I appreciate the time of the committee.

I think it's important for those present today, without the motion in front of them, to hear the details of the motion. It's with considerable regret, frustration, and due process that this motion has come before us today.

I'll read it in detail, and then we can get into the debate as quickly as possible. It reads:

That because the Minister of the Environment has: 1) indicated in Bonn that Canada would not live up to its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol; 2) refused to address the municipal mayors and councillors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities assembled in Montreal in June, 2006; 3) been the first Federal Minister of the Environment to refuse to attend the annual Smog Summit in Toronto; 4) refused to appear before this committee in spite of a standing and open invitation; 5) tabled no plan for Canada to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions or to address Canada's pollution problems; 6) done nothing to stop the regressive cuts to beneficial environmental programs such as EnerGuide for Houses Retrofit Incentive Program and for Low-Income Households; 7) implemented no single measure to conserve or protect Canada's environment to date

The final motion reads:

That the Standing Committee of the Environment and Sustainable Development call on the Government of Canada to dismiss the Minister of the Environment from her current cabinet position and that this decision be reported to the House.

For those committee members who have worked with me in the past, I'm not one to deal with serious issues lightly. It's been an incredibly frustrating experience, both through question period and our inability to receive answers to questions that are significant to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with respect to climate change in particular, but other issues in general.

At the base of this argument is a basic accountability that we as parliamentarians must demand of the government. In previous administrations and in the current one, other ministers have made themselves available to committee, particularly when the request has been forthcoming. Quite frankly, with such a critical issue facing Canadians today—and that is, of climate change and increasing pollution—there simply must be a minister who is willing to answer questions of their colleagues, answer questions of Canadians, and put forward a reliable climate change plan.

Clearly we've waited far too long for this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this point, I would like to move that the motion on the floor is out of order at this time. With your permission, I'll give the reasons why.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, this government has the mandate to deal with CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. It is the cornerstone legislation on the environment, which as a committee we have agreed to deal with.

Mr. Chair, if we think back to the Speech from the Throne, this government committed to achieving tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution.

In the speech, the Governor General of Canada stated:

Recognizing the important role of parliamentarians, members of Parliament will be asked to conduct comprehensive reviews of key federal legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. Chair, this committee did agree that this would be our number one priority, as we would then start to do the review of CEPA 1999. Mr. Chair, this is what the committee should be focusing on.

This motion from the NDP wastes committee time and is distracting the committee from the CEPA review. The motion also seeks to waste parliamentary time in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'd ask that rather than going on to debate, you conclude. Then we'll open it for debate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The salient point is that the Government of Canada does not have the authority to dismiss ministers; the Prime Minister has that authority. That's the fundamental reason why this is out of order and also why I believe it's political mischief.

The member did say that climate change and pollution are critical issues. We believe they are. I believe that what we see today is political mischief, not a genuine intent to deal with the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What are we debating, Mr. Cullen's motion or the question raised by Mr. Warawa? Are we discussing Mr. Cullen's motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, we're on the debate of Mr. Cullen's motion.

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

All right.

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

On a point of order, then, if there's been a challenge to the motion, as to whether it's in order or not, is it not procedure to rule on it?

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

Mr. Chairman, before starting the debate, I would like to clerk to tell us whether the motion is in order or not.

[The Clerk of the Committee]

The motion is in order.

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

The motion is in order. Thank you,that solves the issue raised by Mr. Warawa, the parliamentary secretary.

On the substance of the issue, I would like to say that the Bloc Québecois will vote in favour of this motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. On a number of occasions, in this committee, we indicated to the government that we wanted the minister to come here and explain her vision for the future with regard to environmental protection and particularly the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that the House of Commons has recently adopted a motion requesting the federal government to table a plan to achieve the green house gas emission objectives provided for under the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the opposition has often asked the Minister of Environment whether she intends to incorporate the Kyoto objectives into her future plan.

We can only conclude today that the government has declined to satisfy the wishes of the House. Moreover, the Minister has refused to appear before the committee although she was free and had ample time to do so.

I believe that the motion presented by my NDP colleague is justified and should be supported by this committee. That is my wish and that is the position we will state in today's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I'm a little confused by what you just said to Mr. Bigras; you said that Mr. Warawa's motion is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, I said that Mr. Cullen's motion is in order.

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

Does it take precedence? It would be moot for Mr. Warawa's motion to be debated after we'd voted on the main motion. I'm just a little puzzled as to which thing we vote on first and whether Mr. Warawa's takes precedence over the debate on the main motion.

If we don't resolve the question that Mr. Warawa's putting to us, then it won't matter if we've already debated the issue, because it will have gone past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, basically I think what we're trying to do is to clarify the position on this.

Mr. Cullen's motion is in order. Mr. Warawa's motion is basically part of the debate. Each person then has the ability to enter into this debate and give their point of view, as has been done by Mr. Bigras and will be done by other members. At the end of the day, we will take a vote on that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Procedurally, I have a motion on the floor questioning whether or not this motion is in order. Mr. Chair, you have ruled that it is in order, but the motion then is challenging the position of whether or not it is in order. I could go on at length.

In my opinion, the way I read procedure is that it is not in order, and I gave my reasons, Mr. Chair, but the motion on the table at this time is my motion, and whether or not it's in order. That needs to be voted on before we can proceed and debate the orginal motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to explain the ruling that I have in terms of Mr. Cullen's motion. I have checked with the clerk; I have checked with the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House advises me that this motion is in order; the clerk advises me that it is in order. However, obviously we can now debate the issue as to whether your part of the debate....