Environment Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a question, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify the structure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, do you have a point of order?

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

I don't think we'll hold a debate on the motion. First, it hasn't been moved. The question that must be resolved...

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, we are.

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

The motion hasn't been moved. We're currently discussing in order to determine whether we are going to continue our study on this issue.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The motion has been moved.

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

The motion has already been moved?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The motion was moved.

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

So the debate concerns the motion?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

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

All right, we're debating the motion. Perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, do you want to continue, as quick as you can?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I do. As I started my comments, I think as we discuss specifics of the motion before us, it may give us an idea whether more information from witnesses is needed. Considering what the witnesses said, both witnesses had shared today that this is a very important decision we're making, and that more witnesses should be considered. I don't have a problem with that.

My question specific to the motion we're discussing is about the use of the word “advocate”. The first witness we heard from was the Auditor General. She addressed the word “advocate” with concern. She shared that there was a possible conflict in using the term “advocate”. She acquitted it to somebody who would help draft policy. If you're drafting policy, creating policy, and then in turn auditing yourself, you'd be in conflict and couldn't do that. So I think we need to very clearly know what the motion means.

The brief on New Zealand from the Library of Parliament is saying an advocate is investigating concerns that citizens raise about the environmental performance of public agencies and encouraging preventative measures and remedial actions.

So, through you, Chair, to Mr. McGuinty, is that what your definition of “advocate” is in your motion?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to hear from other witnesses, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll hear from everyone.

I just remind members that, as has been said I think, this is simply sending it on to government. So our decision is going to be, do we send it to government and let them set up the study and what format that will take, the committee or whatever? Also, do we need more witnesses? Do we need to hear more, and so on? If we do, as the clerk has mentioned, with the difficulty of getting people in a week's time, we probably will have to do this in two weeks' time or whatever. I just remind the members of that.

Remember, too, that in the definition read by Mr. Warawa, there is a petition process within the environment auditor general where citizens already can be advocates, can go to the commissioner and ask the commissioner to do that. Having done that with Sumas 2, I know that process does work, where you go and say, I think the government isn't taking this seriously enough, do something, and of course the environment auditor general took that up as a petition and did something with it. That was from a citizen's perspective.

So let's go to--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I did not hear the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty wants to hear all of the comments, and then he will comment, because it's his motion.

Let's just go to Mr. Harvey, then Mr. Warawa again, and then Mr. Vellacott.

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

At our meeting, Ms. Fraser explained to us that the Commissioner of the Environment had previously written a number of reports. Until the moment the events concerning Ms. Gélinas occurred, I don't think anyone had any criticism to make of the situation, the quality or the direction of the reports, and so on. We can unanimously say that the work was well done. At no time in the past 10 years was any problem of interference, independence or anything whatever reported. I believe that all members from the parties agree that the work was done.

Today, we are having a debate to determine whether the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development should continue to report to the Auditor General. As Bernard said, I don't feel very comfortable making such an important decision too quickly. I don't see the urgency of that. Furthermore, a Commissioner of the Environment has already been appointed to replace Ms. Gélinas. We should take the time to see how that goes. I don't see any urgency because the work is being done. History shows that the work has always been done. So I don't see why we should move so quickly.

Objectively, I'm not making a scene, except that I find it hard to understand why this is suddenly urgent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I was wondering, Mr. Chair, if it's a possibility. If Anthony would like for us to go over there, is there a possibility of doing videoconferencing, setting it up with maybe the New Zealand Auditor General and also the Commissioner of the Environment? Maybe we can arrange it that way, although I don't know if our budget would allow it. It's not inexpensive to do that kind of thing, but that would be a consideration as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We did make a decision to have Tim do that research. Of course, he produced that paper for us that did summarize things. You've been using it.

There are all kinds of ways we could do this, but I don't believe Mr. McGuinty's original intention was to do full-scale research on this whole thing, because obviously this could be a major project.

I do remind members that we do have CEPA going on, and it would be nice to finish it sometime. We do have until May, but I don't think we want to go that long. And of course we do have Bill C-30 going on, and a number of you are very busy with that. I put that into perspective, again with what has been proposed.

That's the last speaker I have. Mr. McGuinty, could you now comment, please?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, I think we would benefit from one more meeting at which we hear testimony. I'm reminded of the debate we had on Bill C-30. It now appears that government members want to delay this decision, but I do respect the fact that we need to get some good testimony here. We've seen two very good witnesses today. We had the Auditor General herself, but we may want to call Madame Gélinas and have her explain how she sees the office moving forward, for example. But I think one more meeting would be helpful for us.

I'm sure nobody here wants to delay this decision, but it's important to get some more commentary. Why don't we schedule the next meeting as one where we can get some witnesses in, and then we can put it to a vote at the end of that meeting?

Again, I would be particularly pleased if Madame Gélinas herself could show and speak to the merits of hiving off the position, about strengthening it, and so on. She would also I think help to clarify for Mr. Warawa his concerns about advocacy, about where advocacy begins and ends. There are some concerns about that, and I share those concerns.

But I think there's a consensus around the table that we need to strengthen the position, so I would like to see another day, with the indulgence of the committee members. Let's bring in one, two, or three witnesses and move on from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, we certainly can invite Ms. Gélinas. I'm not sure of the legal implications if she's undergoing court proceedings or whatever is happening there. Obviously, we'd have to check that out, but we could invite her.

As the clerk mentioned, there were about six or seven other names. We did ask the Privacy Commissioner. I believe his reason was that he was so new on the job that he hadn't reported to his own committee yet, and that it wasn't quite right that he appear before our committee before his own. That probably will be remedied by the time we might have him.

What we have scheduled is CEPA for about four meetings, and then we were going to do the private members' business. Then, of course, there's the two-week break. We could try to schedule this for near the end of that period, before the break, in order to get it done before then.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Next week?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, it depends on witnesses. The problem there is whether or not we could get people by a week from today. I don't know. We can try and we can see what happens.

Is that a consensus? Is everybody in agreement with that? Are there any other comments on that?

Mr. Warawa, you had a comment.