Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I was, for a while, on the committee that studied Bill C-2. We spent 20 hours a week on that bill. Currently, we are sitting 4 hours a week. In my opinion, adding an extra 2 hours should not be a problem, particularly since the new committee examining the Clean Air Act will not begin sitting for another two weeks.

So we could devote four to six hours to CEPA, which is important. We want to deal with it quickly, and I think that can be done within the next two weeks. The testimony that we hear may help us when we move on to air quality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to suggest anything cynical, but let me just suggest a scenario. I would be interested to find out what the opposition think of something like this. In order to keep the CEPA review going, if we were to alternate days with Bill C-288, and push back the timeline, I submit there would probably be some howling from the other side.

Quite frankly, I think they're dressing up an argument on this one. I think we should go for an additional meeting. There is no guarantee that someone like me is going to end up on the Clean Air Act. I would like to keep going with the CEPA review, so we don't lose momentum and it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I think it is a priority.

I think we've been accommodating with respect to the need to get on with Bill C-288 and some of those things. I suggest that it would be good faith from the opposition to accede to this additional requirement. Let's get on with the CEPA review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

It is a difficult one. I understand the intention of what Mr. Warawa is suggesting.

I do share some concerns with Mr. Godfrey in terms of basic participation. For many of us, this would be five committee meetings a week over the next little while, along with the other files we have to deal with.

It almost feels a bit out of order in a sense, because my interest in getting to the Bill C-288 action plan would determine what we're able to do. I made suggestions that there be some interspersing of CEPA within our work plan so as not to allow a loss of momentum with that study. There are a number of groups we deal with in business and environment who are worried.

The problem, though, as Mr. Godfrey pointed out...Bill C-50, in a sense, is almost entirely a CEPA review; it is a change to CEPA to allow certain outcomes. The CEPA review process feels almost academic compared to what the government has suggested in their Clean Air Act. That has concrete suggestions, producing concrete results, which can be debated, as opposed to just any general recommendations.

I also feel we are near the end of our CEPA review. I am not sure how much more we have and how much more we need. That will be something the clerk or the chair might be able to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I am advised that there are seven topics left. That's seven meetings. That is just to get to the draft report. Then, of course, we'd have to have time on the draft report.

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

Just to clarify for the committee, as a minimum, we're talking about approximately ten meetings. The initial impetus was to try to get this done before Christmas. We don't have ten weeks, first of all, so this motion wouldn't necessarily allow us to get there.

Frankly, I think we're at a bit of a crossroads as to where our priorities lie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa is next.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will add a clarification to what Mr. Cullen has said. The motion says that we'd have one additional meeting per week until the Christmas break; at that point we will be done with Bill C-288, so we could then go back to the CEPA review at full speed. It keeps momentum. It keeps us updated on the issues.

There have been accusations that some do not support CEPA or even a CEPA review. I don't believe that. I believe there is a true desire to support CEPA. It's a good piece of legislation. What we've seen, basically, is Bill C-288 take over from CEPA. CEPA has been put aside. I want to give the committee an opportunity to show in good faith that it is still a priority; it is to us, and hopefully it is to everybody on this committee.

Yes, these are busy times. At the last Parliament I sat on three different committees. I sat on a Bill C-38 special legislative committee; we were meeting for many hours almost every day because it was a priority. Is CEPA a priority? Absolutely.

Basically we have an opportunity to show whether or not it is indeed a priority. I will be supporting this because it is a priority. I'm willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and to go to as many meetings as necessary, to do the CEPA review.

I will respect the wishes of the majority to deal with Bill C-288, but, Mr. Chair, we have to continue on with the CEPA review. Morally, it's the right thing to do. Whatever is required, I'm willing to go to as many meetings as necessary for as long as necessary to do it. That's the spirit of this motion, and hopefully the majority of the committee members will agree that CEPA is indeed a priority to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a small point.

On Bill C-288, when is the legislative requirement for it to be back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It is February 20-something.

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

That's important to keep in mind.

On Mr. Warawa's last point, in the government's Bill C-30, many fundamental changes are proposed to CEPA right in that bill. That is what many of us in this committee are going to be engaged in on this special legislative committee. It feels like a practical application of this almost academic review of CEPA.

The committee must keep in mind that the review we're doing of CEPA is only a set of recommendations to government; there's nothing mandatory about them. The government can completely ignore what we do with CEPA, whereas Bill C-30 is a proposed bill; it is a proposed piece of legislation to change CEPA. It seems to me that as a committee we haven't yet resolved the cross-purposes of all these different pieces of legislation and review in front of us right now that are affecting the same act. The one that seems to affect the act the most, and most directly, is Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey has suggested that we can't suppose what we're going to get and we can't suppose who's going to be on whatever. Mr. Harvey has suggested that we look at this motion in starting, and then when other things happen, we could re-evaluate.

I'm not sure, Mr. Warawa, whether that fits within your parameter of how you look at this situation.

Mr. Watson is next.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of things.

To your earlier point, the motion doesn't call for us to finish the review by Christmas; it's to continue the review with an additional meeting per week, so the review may actually take us beyond the Christmas timeline. What we're suggesting is that we continue with the review with an additional....

It's not only that. The experience of this committee in the last Parliament was that we were many, many weeks into a study of Kyoto and then the government dropped the plan in the middle of it. We continued on with our review of the Kyoto Protocol. We of course brought in aspects of what was happening with the government's climate change plan. That came in. It informed the work we did as a committee. We had no problem with doing that at the time, and we still produced a report--one that we're going to be bringing back, interestingly enough, in the discussion on Bill C-288--so I don't think that parties agreeing to put a special legislative committee to discuss the Clean Air Act can't somehow inform what we're doing.

It is a mandatory requirement that we do a review. Whether or not the result is binding on the government, it's mandatory that we actually do the review, so I think it's important that we continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

We should study Bill C-288, CEPA, and Bill C-30. Are there any issues that the committee should tackle in the short and medium term?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

A couple of private members' bills have now been referred to the committee, one of them unanimous last night, which means it probably wouldn't take a lot of time.

So those are there, and then of course there's the special committee, or however that's going to be arranged.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

What is the deadline for C-288? When should it be sent back to the House?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

At the end of February.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

February. Okay.

And CEPA?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

For CEPA it's May 10, I think.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

And what about Bill C-30?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We don't know. It hasn't been referred to committee. If it's a special committee, it may not come to us.

We don't know any of those answers yet.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

How many times will we have to meet before we submit the CEPA report to the House?