Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

Well, the purpose of this amendment was, of course, to answer the concerns of the Auditor General herself about the limits of the commissioner. The commissioner, yesterday in her testimony, said that once the programs are in place and there are results to be audited, she would automatically come back into play in her capacity as Commissioner of the Environment. That's what she does, but she does it after the fact. She does not have the capacity or the right to give policy advice before something actually happens. She can't comment on prospective things; she can only comment on things that have been done and the auditing. Although there is no specific reference now in the clause to the Commissioner of the Environment, her role of auditing after the fact automatically continues, and I think she confirmed that for us yesterday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, did you have a comment?

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

I just want to point out the difference between the two times when something actually happens. The first step is to assess the validity of the plan. The idea is to ascertain whether it will attain the objectives, and that work is performed by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Then, once that evaluation has been completed, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development does what was planned originally. The National Round Table is only involved in the first stage. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development does not have the power, since she is not an auditor, to make a judgment about the future; her assessment is based on the past.

The National Round Table looks whether the plan can meet the objectives that have been set and, once the year is up, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reviews the situation as a whole.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on the amendment? A recorded vote? No.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So we're back to clause 10 as amended.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's important to realize that we on the government side support the recommendations of the commissioner concerning accountability and transparency. As my colleague Mr. Godfrey has said, that is our hallmark, and I appreciate he recognizes that.

The aspects of Bill C-288, though, such as accountability and transparency that would accompany the filing of regular climate change plans before Parliament, are positive proposals we support, including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the process of developing climate change targets and timelines. In fact, the national round table is engaged in this activity currently in support of the government plan.

Therefore, the idea of using the national round table to provide advice to the minister for accountability and transparency is already in place in the government's proposed plan. The government has an integrated plan to deal with both greenhouse gases and air pollution. On air pollutants, the government plan is to establish national objectives for ambient air, particulate matter, and ozone for the periods of 2025 and 2050.

The government's plan is also to establish national emission reduction targets that reach to 2050 for total emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, gaseous ammonia, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and for the following sectors: the oil and gas sector; the electricity sector; base metals; iron and steel; aluminum; cement; chemicals; forest products; transportation; consumer products; and commercial, institutional, residential, and agricultural sectors.

On greenhouse gases, the government's plan will—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to Mr. Calkins, a reading of what is planned to be developed in Bill C-30, since we're talking about Bill C-288.... I know the government wants committee members to work together. Reading out a list of what the government has proposed in a completely different bill seems to me out of order when we're talking about Bill C-288.

We've been through this a number of times. If we're looking to waste time, then this is a way to proceed. I'd encourage all the committee members to raise valid arguments in debate, but not to delve into other bills. Let's talk about what's at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, if you could try to keep it to Bill C-288, I think that's a reasonable request, and of course, one that we started out with. So try to relate it to clause 10, if possible.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I never did mention Bill C-30, but I'd like to thank the NDP member for pointing that out to the committee. I'm just trying to compare and contrast the government's plan, Mr. Chairman, with the plan that would be put forward by this bill. I think it's completely appropriate to be discussing the opposing points of view.

The government does have a plan to develop medium-term emission targets for 2020 to 2025 for the sectors I just mentioned. The advice should recognize the outlook for Canadian economic growth and the government's intention to build upon the emissions intensity approach with targets that are ambitious enough to translate effectively into a fixed cap on absolute emissions.

The national emissions target should be adopted within the range of a 45% to 65% reduction from 2003 levels by 2050 and should include scenarios for how this target could be achieved, including the role of technology and capital stock renewal. In providing this advice, the national round table should also examine the medium- and long-term targets and policy approaches under consideration or implementation in other countries.

That's a much more logical approach than rushing blindly ahead with this bill and with this clause within this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I would encourage my colleagues to think about that.

So I won't be able to support this particular clause in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on clause 10 as amended?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I really like the contrast, the other, better plan that was referenced here before--the government plan--because what we are finding in this Bill C-288 is that it doesn't do the job in terms of cleaning up in the country.

As one well-known person in our Parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, has said, “We'll clean up Kazakhstan, but we won't clean up downtown Toronto,” and that's the nature of Bill C-288. We need to have a more thorough plan. The government plan does exactly that in contrast to this very weak and failed kind of bill that's before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on clause 10 as amended?

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

There's another amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's separate. That's a new clause, so we'll vote on clause 10 as it exists, and then we'll come to new clause 10.1 and talk about that one and vote on that one. We'll have a recorded vote.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey has asked for a five-minute rest break. I would like the committee's agreement on that. We'll take five minutes, Mr. Harvey.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Perhaps I could get everyone to take their places, please, so we can get back to the clause-by-clause.

We are now discussing a new clause, clause 10.1, which you can find on page 28. This is proposed by Mr. Rodriguez.

Perhaps you could give us your reasons and discussion, please, Mr. Rodriguez.

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

With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

The addition of this clause is simply intended to ensure that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development will examine the results at least once every two years. It would be preferable for the Commissioner to review them before that, but it will have to be done at least once every two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any comments on the new clause 10.1, any debate?

Yes, Mr. Harvey.

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

And what is the position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in that regard?

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act stipulates that this has to be done once every five years. And even then, it only happened after six years the last time. Has the Commissioner been asked whether, in her opinion, it would be possible to do this every two years?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

We discussed everything relating to this section with the Auditor and her officials. There was one problem, but we corrected it. It had to do with proactive analysis. We were asking the Commissioner to determine whether or not the plan would meet Kyoto targets, and that posed a problem. However, in terms of reviewing the plan every two years to see whether or not it has met the targets, that did not pose a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Two days ago we had the commissioner here. She was one of the witnesses. This was not brought up; she was not questioned on this. So here we are with this on-the-fly type of legislation, which of course the Liberals are known for. One of the reasons the witnesses shared with us is that the Kyoto targets are not achievable.

I would not support this. It's not in the mandate of the commissioner. She was not questioned about this even as recently as two days ago.

Yes, we need more accountability on the environment, but this is, again, on the fly. This deals just with the climate change. If we want to discuss--not through Bill C-288--the accountability on the environment through the commissioner, that needs to be discussed thoroughly. On air pollution, we know that's a big, important issue for the health of Canadians. The quality of water and the land--there are a lot of issues that would invoke a healthy discussion.

To create a new clause in Bill C-288 on the fly, as the Liberals are famous for, I think is inappropriate, and I will not be supporting this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I have a considerable list here.

Mr. Cullen.