Environment Committee on March 1st, 2007

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

I think the motion speaks for itself. No reference whatsoever is made to the letter in question. The issue is the 2006 report of the Commissioner of the Environment on climate change. This is a public report. Everyone is aware of the situation and of the recommendations.

Regarding the substance of the recommendations, it should be remembered that when the Commissioner of the Environment tabled her report, she stated in no uncertain terms -- and I'm summarizing her comments -- that if the government was unable to meet its Kyoto targets and felt that these targets were unattainable, then it had a duty to tell us how it planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and what plan it was prepared to put forward.

Fundamentally, this motion is a statement by the committee that it firmly intends to see that the government follows up on requests made by the former Commissioner of the Environment, Ms. Gélinas.

We will most assuredly back this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Monsieur Harvey.

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

I would like to see a more readable French version of the motion. I've reread it several times and there appear to be some words missing. The French version reads as follows:

Que le gouvernement du Canada produisent un plan d'action addressant les recommandations a fait dans le rapport 2006 de changement climatiques par la commissaire a l'environnement et au développement durable.

There seems to be something missing in the French version.

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

If you'd care to move a friendly amendment, by all means go ahead.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Do you wish to move a friendly amendment?

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

I don't think I have the necessary translation skills to do the job.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

So then, if the two versions are different...

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As I said at the beginning, I'm not opposed to this motion. If the chair rules that we're going to proceed to a vote on this, I'll be supporting it. The point I'm quite concerned about is procedural.

We had a motion that was ruled by the clerk to be not relevant. It wasn't a friendly amendment to the original motion. It was a stand-alone motion. Then, because we didn't have the motion in writing in both official languages, we had to wait and hold it to the end. But the letter that was referred to is not available to us.

Again, it concerns me that if we get too lax, we can get ourselves into trouble as a committee when it comes to future decisions. I will support the motion, which is adequately presented in both official languages. The intent of the motion I have no problem with--having the government report is fine--but procedurally we have to do things right.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

First of all, we've had a ruling on the admissibility of the motion. However, the clerk has spoken to the senior clerks in the interim and can comment some more for us.

[The Clerk]

When we agreed to dispense with the motion until the end of the meeting, I talked to the senior clerks, and they indicated that committee business is a very broad category, and you can bring, as I mentioned before, other items forward. Also, given past practice of this committee, where this sort of thing has been acceptable, or there have been no objections in the past to this type of practice, I advised the chair that it was admissible to accept Mr. Cullen's motion.

The senior clerks also reminded me, however, that the concept of a notice principle is exactly as Mr. Vellacott pointed out at the beginning of the meeting, where you afford the entire committee appropriate time to consider motions that are brought forward in order to allow members to reflect appropriately before they vote.

So we're in a situation where it is a bit of a grey zone, where motions can be brought forward through the back door, as some members would probably consider this to be the case. But again, the committee business rubric is a fairly broad and large one, and it does allow for members to bring forward other items of business. In this case Mr. Cullen's motion was another item of committee business and therefore, according to past practice of the committee, it could go forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'd like to call the question, but before I do, I suggest the word “a” be deleted from the second line of the French version. Would that be correct?

First, I'll hear from Mr. Lussier, followed by Mr. Godfrey.

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

Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Harvey has no objections, I'd like to suggest an accurate French translation of the motion, which would read as follows:

Que le gouvernement du Canada produise un plan d'action répondant aux recommandations faites par la commissaire à l'environnement et au développement durable dans son rapport de 2006 sur les changements climatiques.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You may have a new career in your future.

The motion would, therefore, read as follows in French: “Que le gouvernement du Canada produise un plan d'action répondant aux recommandations faites dans le rapport [...]”

The only thing is that if you were going to have the same meaning in English, you would say, “the Government of Canada bring forth an action plan responding to the recommendations made in the 2006 climate change report of the Commissioner of the Environment”, and if members would like to change the English to that as well.... But I think we're fine with the French as proposed by Monsieur Lussier.

Mr. Godfrey.

It's sufficiently clear.

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

We do so much stuff around here that sometimes you forget what you've already done. I have a memory--which is faulty--but I think in the month of December I put forward two things. One was that we ask the Auditor General to appear in that context, to justify why we needed annual reports, or four times a year or whatever. But I also thought I asked that we in fact ask the government to comment on progress made to date on the commissioner's report from 2006.

Do you have some memory of this? I have a feeling this was done in a flurry of last-minute activity. It would simply reinforce the point that you're making, but does anyone else remember my doing that? It's so embarrassing, but I have a funny feeling we were asking for a letter to go from Bob Mills to--

[A voice]

Nous allons vérifier.

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

Okay. Bon.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

A letter came forward from the Auditor General, but there was no actual motion that the clerk can recall, at least in relation to this.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate that we had good dialogue, and concerns have been expressed. We're at our time limit. Can I call the question so we can move on?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I call the question on the motion, with the English version as written.

And the amended French version which reads as follows:

Que le gouvernement du Canada produise un plan d'action répondant aux recommandations faites dans le rapport 2006 de changements climatiques par la commissaire à l'environnement et au développement durable.

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned.