Environment Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

No. I'm going to keep my speaking time for later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you. A couple of other people here owe you that, Mr. Lussier.

Anyway, I'd like to thank our guests certainly for being here. I think it has been very valuable. We've heard two sides, and it has helped increase our knowledge on this subject. So thank you very much.

We will now go into discussion of this motion. Certainly our witnesses can stay. This is an open meeting, if you care to hear what is said.

We have Mr. McGuinty's motion. So, Mr. McGuinty, as mover of this motion, would you like to begin?

I think we've gone through the reasons and what this is, so could we keep it really brief? We have three-quarters of an hour. I know the time is critical, so if you don't have to say it, don't say it.

Mr. McGuinty, I'll let you begin, as it is your motion, and we'll go to Mr. Calkins next, and then to Mr.—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

There is no need at this time, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In light of the testimony that we've heard today, I'm wondering if there is a will around this table to hear more witnesses on this, or if it's something that should be wrapped up today.

As a new parliamentarian, I'm certainly learning a lot by having these discussions, but for some of the rest of my colleagues at this table, I'm not sure if there is a will. I don't want to belabour this thing too long, but it may be that we should hear from some representatives of some other countries to see how their implementation and processes have worked as far as a commissioner of the environment is concerned. I'd sure like, for my own benefit, to hear that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, quickly, and then Mr. Regan.

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

I have a question here. I ask the members, and I'm not sure what kind of an answer I'll get—and it would have been good to ask our witnesses here today, too—if in fact there had not been a seemingly somewhat abrupt completion to Ms. Gélinas' role there, would we even be having a discussion like this today?

As the members opposite have indicated, we really don't have a very clear picture, but if in two or three months from now we have a better or clearer understanding of what that was all about, at such point as we do....

Up until this point, nobody seemed to be raising the issues here. We've heard her several times and actually seemed pleased with her work. I think she has been non-partisan. She has criticized the Conservatives. She has heavily criticized the Liberals of the past here as well. So I guess on that balance of things she's done a fair-minded, objective kind of job.

I didn't hear a big hue and cry at all before, frankly. But I don't know. Maybe in this vacuum of knowledge and not knowing what all transpired here and what prompted this, all of a sudden now we have this coming forward. So I'm wondering if some of us are going to have a little egg on our faces and feel a little foolish a couple of months from now when maybe we have some better understanding of what this completion of her role was all about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan, you had a comment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You'll get it right in due course, anyway.

I don't think it matters what this was precipitated by. The fact is, we're into a discussion of this, but it is really only a discussion. We aren't looking at legislation. We aren't separating the role with this motion today. We're reporting to Parliament that it's our view. And then I think it's up to the government to look at this question and study it, or it may be that Parliament decides it wants to have us study this, for example, or have somebody else look at this in that kind of detail.

And even though my colleague Anthony jokes that he'd like us to go to New Zealand to study what they're doing there--it all sounds very nice--I don't think we need to go quite that far. We've had a good discussion that brings us now to the point where we can make a decision in relation to his motion, which is not legislation but is simply advice to Parliament.

Those are my views.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll go to Mr. Cullen.

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

Part of what we did around this being proposed, because it was considered before this, was to do an actual literature review of other examples. I think the greatest indictment of our system has been the ineffectiveness to this point. There have been moments of effectiveness over the last year, but in the midst of that increased awareness and view of the environment, we lost our Commissioner of the Environment, with no real understanding as to why.

So at the time, when it was finally starting to get attention for various factors, I think a change was precipitated. I don't think the two issues can be fully separated at all, and I don't think they should be. What particularly happened in this case does have some bearing on my vote, certainly, and I would hope it would for other committee members as well.

It's well taken that this goes back to Parliament and that the government has to respond to the committee's will, if it passes and is expressed. But I would say to the government members, and to those others making decisions when this comes to the House, that this is a time when it is most critical for Canada to have a voice that is given the credibility and the weight that is needed for this issue, because we are desperately off course.

And that voice has often been in the wilderness, the voice that Ms. Gélinas and her predecessors before her raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll go to Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think the purpose of the this study is to recall past events concerning the departure of Ms. Gélinas, but rather to examine the office and how we can give it added value. So I think we should get away from these discussions that may have taken place and the outcome of which we definitely will not know in the weeks to come.

I think we must make a decision now. I have nothing against hearing other witnesses, but I'd like the clerk to tell me whether we have exhausted the list of witnesses who were referred to us by colleagues. Have other names been submitted to the clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

We've tried to contact all the witnesses whose names were suggested to us. Unfortunately, the short notice given for the two meetings that we had didn't enable the other witnesses to appear before the committee.

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

Was that simply a time issue? Did those witnesses want to appear on these questions?

[The Clerk]

Yes. All those that I contacted wanted to come. Unfortunately, they were unable to come because of scheduling conflicts.

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

How many witnesses would like to appear?

[The Clerk]

At least six to eight other individuals were contacted. Unfortunately, they could not come last Thursday or today. It's really a scheduling issue.

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

I don't think we should treat this matter lightly. Perhaps we could have another meeting on this matter to ensure that we have the range of witnesses and all the opinions before we proceed with a vote on Mr. McGuinty's motion.

So there could be another, broader meeting to enable all the witnesses who so wish to appear before the committee in order to be heard on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We certainly could try to schedule that. The discussion was about finishing today. That was the original agreement that Mr. McGuinty agreed to and that I think all members did. So we should think about that, but let's just move on and clear a couple of more people.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The discussion right now is centring around whether we should hear from more witnesses. I do have some other questions, with your permission, I could move on and maybe we could come back to that.

There's been concern expressed by the Auditor General regarding the use of the word “advocate” in the motion, I believe. It says “the Commissioner to advocate on environmental and sustainable development issues”. My question is, what is meant by the word “advocate”?

From the Library of Parliament, we each received a brief, and there is a definition from New Zealand of what they mean by “advocate”. So, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. McGuinty, because it's his motion, is he using the same definition of “advocate” as what we see in this brief? If you like, I can read that, or are you familiar with that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I want to hear the comments on this, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can you just quickly tell us, what does “advocate” mean?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We've moved on from the witnesses, have we not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we're hearing from everyone here. Let's do that first, and then we can decide--