Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Approximately ten, probably, or seven, with witnesses, and then three more to finish the report.

I'm just guessing here.

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

And for Bill C-288?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're going to get to the work plan.

We have the minister as well, which would be one more meeting. On November 22, European parliamentarians are here.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, what we're talking about in this motion is that for the next five weeks, starting next week, we already have the witnesses contacted. We can keep up that momentum, so it's not a lot of work.

We have been accused of maybe not working that hard. We do work hard.

I think it was somebody about the Liberals....

We can really earn our pay, Mr. Chair, and we can show as a committee that CEPA is important. We're only talking five weeks of working really hard. I'm willing to do it. As for the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30, we don't know when that will start, but it may be starting after this.

So what we're talking about is an extra meeting per week, and we keep the CEPA review going. I think it's a priority. We need to do it. It's a legislative requirement, and it shows good faith.

Do we support dealing with toxic substances or not? I sure hope we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harvey's question was quite relevant; it helped us to better understand how much time is available for each one of these bills or acts.

We have until December 7 to deal with Bill C-288. You said that there are seven sitting days left for us to hear from the witnesses and two or three meetings to draft the report. We have until May.

Are you saying that we have until next May to study CEPA?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

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

I do not see why we need to add another sitting, at this time, since we have until May for CEPA, particularly since the government should be delighted that we will be dealing with the Clean Air Act and Bill C-30 as soon as a committee has been struck.

I think this fine balance will allow us to deal with Bill C-288 and respect our deadlines for the CEPA review, while allowing us to study Bill C-30, which is what the government would like us to do. To continue the discussion would be...

I do not know what the government is looking for, but it is clear that we have all of the time we need to do it and we can meet all of the regulatory deadlines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that scenario presumes on the future. I understand there is other private members' business that will have to be considered by this committee. There may be further government legislation that we don't know of yet that would have to come before this committee--any of a number of possibilities that could put off our timetable.

I always work under the understanding, why put off to tomorrow what can be done today? Presuming on the future I think is an irresponsible thing for this committee to do. There may be many things that come in February to the early spring that could push back the CEPA review even further, and suddenly what looks like we have a lot of time isn't a lot of time.

This is only one additional meeting for the next five weeks. It's not an awful lot of extra work to ask of the committee, and I think it's better to get the job done now, break the back of this work, so that when we come back, we have only two more meetings for witnesses and then three meetings to write a report.

I would rather worry about five days' worth of meetings in the new year than several more than that, because there may be more business coming that the opposition may not be aware of. So I think it's time to get this thing done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Harvey.

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

There are two things. One is the concern I have with some of the things Mr. Bigras has said. Focusing on May as a deadline, the one element in there--and many of us consider this--is that the potential election around the budget means we would lose the CEPA review. To assume that we're going to get to May...I haven't heard a lot of pundits or party leaders talk about all the work we're going to do together in May, because there seems to be at least the probability of an election call.

The only question I have, because you've mentioned a couple of other things on our calendar, is that there are many competing interests on this committee's time, and I'm not sure I know all the pieces you've talked about having. You've mentioned certain European parliamentarians, the two private members' bills that both passed through with near unanimous--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think, Mr. Cullen, just to clear that up, we could ask the clerk and Tim to put together a list for us of all the things they're aware of.

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

It's difficult to make a decision on this, to be frank, when I hear another couple of things and another couple of things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I just don't think we should get into the hypothetical, what might happen and what might not happen. Let's try to deal with what is and what we know and move from that basis.

I think Mr. Harvey is next.

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

Mr. Cullen said from now to May, but anything can happen.

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

So we will not be dealing with C-30?

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

We should at least submit the CEPA report; that was one of our objectives. That is what I meant to say when I spoke earlier.

Whatever we do, we have to decide if we will be adding one extra meeting per week. Since we have no other obligations for the time being, we can easily add one more sitting. We all agree on the importance of the environment. If you talk to talk, then you have to walk the walk. We are ready to move things along. We are the ones putting the brakes on this. We would like to sit more often, and we want to do more work.

What is happening then? You are the ones asking us. We want to work harder, and we are told to wait two weeks. We could get a lot done this week and the next. That is the objective.

Do you agree?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If I might just suggest, I think we've heard pretty much all the arguments.

We have two more people on the speaking list, Mr. Bigras and Mr. Rodriguez. Can we go to the vote at that point?

Okay. Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watson's arguments make no sense. He says that there is no guarantee that the government will not introduce new environmental legislation.

I do not want to make this political, but according to the Conservative Party's election platform, the only commitment that they made was to introduce a bill on air quality, which is Bill C-30.

In view of what Mr. Watson has just said, I have every intention of checking with my House leader to enquire about the government's agenda. I will ask my House leader if the government House leader has any other bills related to the environment.

If we follow that reasoning, then we should not even study Bill C-30 in committee, since there might be an election in May. So there would be very little time to move Bill C-30 along to report stage.

That makes no sense, Mr. Chairman. We have deadlines to meet, and the number of meetings that we have planned will allow us to deal with Bill C-288, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and — I hope, for the government's sake — Bill C-30 as well.

With things as they now stand, we will not need to add any extra sittings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am in full agreement with Mr. Bigras.

I only have one thing to add. I would like to remind our government friends that since we set a date for Bill C-288, which should return to the House before December 7, we are wasting time quite uselessly here today.

Since you feel that Bill C-288 warrants our attention, I would encourage members to begin discussing the list of witnesses so that we may, as they have suggested, spend as much time as possible on Bill C-288.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So, Mr. Warawa, it's your motion. Do you want to finish debate?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen made a suggestion that he was hoping the clerk would provide a schedule or a listing of upcoming business to make our responsibilities a little clearer. If he's suggesting that we defer, that would be an option we could consider and then deal with this at a future meeting.

But my first choice is that we make a decision today. I think based on priority, is a CEPA review important? It is to the government.

We've heard from the Bloc and the Liberals that Bill C-288 appears to be more important than CEPA. Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that Bill C-288 is taking a priority. As has been pointed out, we have until the end of February to deal with Bill C-288. So at the last meeting we suggested that we do Bill C-288 on a Tuesday and then on a Thursday do CEPA review, so we could be doing both in parallel. Mr. Chair, that was not supported. So what we are willing to do, if the Liberals and the Bloc want to push through Bill C-288, then—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, if I might interrupt, we do have a motion, which was passed, that we have to report back about Bill C-288 by December 7.