Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As a point of clarification, are we looking at Liberal amendment 2, or are we looking at the original—
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're looking at Liberal amendment 3 on page 28, at the addition of a new clause 10.1.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
No, I'm going to cede to Mr. Scarpaleggia, who actually did ask the commissioner—
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
To answer Mr. Warawa, I would say that officials at the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development were obviously consulted about this, and it is not an issue.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I asked the question quite pointedly at the last meeting and she responded in the affirmative.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the government's argument. It's quite true that this is not included in the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's current mandate, but she is an officer of Parliament and members of Parliament can certainly decide to give the Commissioner whatever mandate they so desire.
It may not be part of the Commissioner's mandate now, but if parliamentarians decide that it should, then it can certainly be added. I believe that is the whole purpose of this bill, and it is perfectly legitimate to propose this kind of amendment. No? I think he has a question.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
In response to Mr. Bigras' comment, you don't do things like this on the fly; you do them properly.
As I said in my comments, should this reporting for proper accountability on the environment include pollution and air quality? Should we be looking at water quality and the pollution of the lands in Canada?
I said this should invoke good healthy discussion, but to have it inserted on the fly into Bill C-288 I don't think is good procedure.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
As I said, to be very clear, it's not on the fly. It's been shown to the commissioner's office, and they agree with it. I would ask, what do you have against accountability?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Just one moment, Mr. Warawa. We'll put you on the list.
Mr. Bigras.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. It's quite true that it could widened to include the pollution. Indeed, I invite him to table an amendment, when we review Bill C-30, to make that part of the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we can debate it then. I'm not saying I'm opposed, but I think the government's strategy since this morning has been to try and refocus the debate on Bill C-30, when in actual fact, we are examining Bill C-288.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I want to come back to the question I asked earlier about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was released 18 months late, in relation to the five-year objective. That means it took six and a half years for that report to be released, and yet people are saying it's not a problem and the Commissioner will be able to issue a report every two years.
One has reason to wonder whether that is really realistic because we know that the last time, it took six and a half years.
The other problem has to do with the method for counting CO2 emissions. At this time, a number of industries do not have access to the technology.
I agree on the need to protect widows and orphans, as well as the environment, but I do have some very serious questions about this, particularly in terms of what there is an attempt to include in Bill C-288 to make it nice. I have the feeling that, as usual, it's going to be just smoke and mirrors — the kind of thing where there is movement, but not necessarily progress.
December 7th, 2006 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response to the two comments made, first from Mr. Bigras, absolutely, I do agree that Bill C-30 is far superior. Bill C-288 does not meet the targets that Canadians want in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants. That's why I'm so excited about Bill C-30, and hopefully there will be good healthy discussion on that, and your support on that—or his support, speaking through you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez did make a comment that he's consulted with the commissioner. As I said, she was here as a witness two days ago and those questions were not asked of her regarding this motion. He said he has consulted her. I would ask, through you, for him to table her letter. He said she supports this. I would ask for her written response that she supports this, because I don't believe she does. I believe this is a policy on the fly, which the Liberals are famous for, and it gets the government into big trouble; it got them into trouble. We will not do that, Mr. Chair. We will do things properly.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very important clause. The fact is we have to ensure that Canada's national reports to the international community, through the subsidiary bodies of the Conference of the Parties, are consistent with the rules laid down by the international community under the Kyoto Protocol. In that regard, subparagraph 10.1(1)(b) is absolutely critical, since it deals directly with specific items under the Kyoto Protocol, such as meeting targets and carbon sinks. When the time comes to make a report on carbon sinks, will the report that is made to the international community be consistent with the conditions the community has set? Well, there is only one authority — namely, the Auditor General, who is independent — who can pass judgment on the type of report Canada makes to the international community. It simply a matter of ensuring that what Canada does is consistent with the rules laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. For that to happen, this must go through a non-partisan, non-government and independent authority. I believe the Commissioner of the Environment can play that role.