Environment Committee on May 31st, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Colleagues, the meeting is called to order.

I'm sorry to be late. I had another meeting. It is Luc's fault as he slowed me down when I was on my way here.

No, he doesn't want to accept responsibility. We walked in here together, but we were both a minute late. So my apologies.

We have two orders of business today. The first relates to Bill C-377, an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. The second is a notice of motion from Mr. McGuinty, which we'll get to a little later.

I understand from the clerk that the chair, Mr. Mills, has suggested that we first discuss how we want to deal with Bill C-377. We haven't had a discussion to determine our decision about what kind of work plan we would have in relation to this bill, so we should talk about how to organize the committee's work and perhaps about the number of meetings we think we need to have on this bill.

I haven't seen any hands yet, but I think Mr. Cullen would like to talk about a proposed work plan for this, so I'm going to invite him to do so. How does that sound?

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

It sounds great, Mr. Chair.

We've obviously been giving this some consideration. This is just in colloquial to remind committee members that this is Mr. Layton's private member's bill.

This bill was originally designed to take us from 2012 and beyond, because we knew that in play were the government's efforts around clean air and climate change, which became the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, and Mr. Rodriguez's bill. This piece was meant to follow. We've thrown over some ideas about who we think we need to hear from.

The timing of this is kind of fortunate because of the conversations going on in the global context right now. Some of us will be at the global forum leading to the G-8 plus 5.

Bali is the next round of the United Nations meetings that takes us beyond the Kyoto concept. For those of us who have been involved in some of the international negotiations, the main concern at the international community level is that there be no gap between the commitments made in the Kyoto round and the next round, that the negotiations have a natural flow, and that countries recommit to new targets to take us beyond 2012.

Bill C-377 is meant to be that piece, so that Parliament wrestles with the idea of what comes next. We all know the context and the struggles with what happened around the first commitment period. There's an effort to get it right for the second one, because in a sense the second one is where Canada in particular is going to have the most bearing and weight on our domestic policies. I'm sure there are lots of comments on that.

What we're suggesting today is that we have not a brainstorm, Chair, but a throwing in of ideas, and that we then turn to the clerk, or Tim, or whoever may be advising us on a work plan.

Is Tim not with us any more? We're Tim-less. That's okay. Don't over-rely.

[A voice]

Do you want Timbits?

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

If Timbits were made available, the NDP would have no objections, if they were transfat-free.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The question is then to put forward a series of folks from whom we think we need to hear. We've looked over Bill C-288's and the Bill C-30's witnesses. We don't want repetition.

There will be some witnesses who we will suggest to hear from again, only because it's a different conversation. Everything we heard from on Bill C-30 and Bill C-288 was first round, first target-setting. This is all about much further into the future, into 2050, which has different industrial and economic implications.

Certainly we're going to suggest that we hear from the IPCC, in terms of some of their long range; from UN science representatives and their long-range predictions regarding impacts of certain degrees, temperature change, and those types of things; from the UNFCCC; and from some assortment of national domestic environment groups—and balance this with some of the industrial players who will have some comment.

We think there's some interest with Mr. Schwarzenegger's visit yesterday, in looking at what California's plans are. There seems to be some interest from the government side, and certainly from those of us in opposition, towards understanding. It seems that California is taking much of the lead in U.S. domestic policy and is likely to have some effect on Washington.

Maybe we could look at inviting some official American delegation from the federal level in Washington. The reason is that there's been much talk from both the previous government and this government not to be offside what the Americans are planning to do.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You're looking for an excuse to go to Anaheim for game seven.

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

I'm not looking to go to Anaheim for game seven. I'm not sure we could pull it off in that time, and I think the Canadian taxpayers would probably have something to say about that.

The last two witnesses we would see as useful are department officials in terms of the government's long-range plans, and, as we've done on other private members' bills, Mr. Layton, the mover of the bill.

That's about it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Just to clarify, when you spoke of the witnesses we had on previous bills on climate change, some of those witnesses would have spoken about the period up to 2012 and would have knowledge and so forth on the period after that. But you're saying you think that we would not call on most of them.

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

There are two qualifications I would use, particularly on the environmentalist side of things. Some witnesses, I would suggest, are better informed. They specialize in the topic. The other qualification is that they've given serious consideration to what we're talking about here.

There has been a lot of interest and consideration of the first Kyoto period; there are fewer groups that actually work on thinking about the long-term implications. I would say that's also true on the industry side. Some are more short range, but some of the industry groups, the Alcans, in the Canadian context, have been more fixated on the long range.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

One of the reasons I asked is that the clerk has prepared a list of the witnesses who came for both Bill C-288 and Bill C-30. He has copies of that for the members who wish to have the list. Shall I ask him to distribute that list?

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

I think that would be helpful. My suggestion for today is to put ideas on the table, hear from committee members as to who they definitely don't want or want, and then have the clerk present a work plan to take us through the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It seems to me that having the copy of that list would be useful—

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

Sure. Absolutely.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

—as they think about who should come.

I'm going to ask you to pass that around, and then I'll turn to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Cullen and I have talked before about the idea of steering committees. The last time we had the steering committee go over a list of witnesses it worked quite well. You can see how long it's going to take for us to spend a lot of time this morning or in subsequent meetings trying to put together a witness list and a potential plan. I would suggest that we consider having a steering committee go over that. It worked well in the past, and I believe it would work well for this.

You're quite right that what we've discussed to this point has been up to 2012. We're looking to what's after 2012. The G-8 plus 5 climate change dialogue--and Mr. Cullen is going, as many of us on the committee are going, as there's representation from each party--may provide a helpful perspective to build that witness list. I'm willing to meet now, but I would suggest that we'll have a healthier perspective in planning for the future and building a realistic witness list after the G-8 plus 5. That's what I would suggest.

I'm hoping Bill C-377 will provide some good guidance. There are some problems with it, and hopefully we'll find some middle ground. There was some comment in the report from the Library of Parliament that an amendment was suggested for Bill C-288 because of some concerns.

Another witness we need to have would be the environment commissioner. I think that would be helpful. There are some expectations of the commissioner.

I would suggest that we have the witness list built at the steering committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Cullen, you have....

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

That suggestion sounds fine to me. I think it's the best way to work things out quickly. I think we did the Bill C-30 witnesses that way. Everyone presented their options, we vetted them, and then we presented them back to committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am more or less in agreement with what the government is proposing. On the substance of it, I want to remind you that my party supports the principle of Bill C-377, even though we consider that it has major flaws. One would be that the first greenhouse gas reduction period, for 2008 to 2012, does not appear in clause 5 of the bill.

Given that we managed, in committee, to amend Bill C-30 and to pass Bill C-288 which has a 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal for the initial period, I feel that this bill deserves study and major amendments, particularly as far as clause 5 is concerned, so that we could incorporate the 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal, which is not part of Bill C-377.

As far as the approach is concerned, I agree entirely with Mr. Warawa. I think that we must wait for the G8 meeting in June, which will probably give us more information. We also have to wait to see what the Senate will say and what will happen to Bill C-288. If it were to come into effect, that would perhaps change the aspects we would want to work on in Bill C-377.

I am suggesting more or less the same thing as Mr. Warawa. When we look at our agenda, we can see that we have little time left. We know that several committee members will not be here on June 5^th, because they will be in Germany. In the full knowledge that there will probably be a proposal that we'll have to vote on in a few minutes, I think that we will, indeed, have to draw up a witness list and prepare a schedule to study Bill C-377 at the steering committee, as Mr. Warawa has moved. I believe we will be in a position, when we return in September, to study the bill with a witness list and a well-structured agenda.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Monsieur Bigras.

The clerk has suggested, and I think this is in line with what my colleagues have suggested, that we take a week or two so that committee members can send the clerk their suggested witnesses. Those names will be studied either by the committee or by the steering committee. We will have to choose today.

Are there other speakers?

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to support the comments made by Mr. Cullen and Mr. Bigras.

I think this is an important bill to examine closely, because we're in a period of great uncertainty.

We asked the minister on Tuesday of this week whether we're going to see Bill C-30 arrive on the floor of the House of Commons, as it should, and the answer was no.

We asked the minister if he was prepared to work with us on examining whether Bill C-30 could be even further improved. The answer was no.

For meaningful debate, as Monsieur Bigras said just moments ago, there is the question of Bill C-288: where is Bill C-288 going, and how does the government intend to treat Bill C-288? Also, what are the government's constitutional responsibilities? What is it intending to do with a bill that may or may not receive royal assent? The government has been silent so far.

There is great confusion around the potential use of CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. As the minister let us know on Tuesday, he's not clear about how we will or will not participate in CDM.

There is huge uncertainty in the financial markets. I was speaking this week to—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, I don't mean to interrupt, but the discussion right now is Bill C-377, and how we are going to plan Bill C-377. So I would encourage Mr. McGuinty to stay on topic.

Thank you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm right on topic, Mr. Warawa. Thank you very much for reminding me.

There's huge uncertainty, and this speaks directly to this bill. We cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. You cannot. We must examine this bill in the context of Bill C-30, in the context of Bill C-288, in the context of CDM, and in the context of what's happening this weekend in Germany. We have to. We have to examine this in a more fulsome context, a larger context. I'm strongly supportive of examining this bill precisely because of the uncertainty created by the government's plan. There is uncertainty internationally, uncertainty in the provinces, uncertainty in the financial markets, uncertainty with industrial players. There's great uncertainty in Canada now. This is where we've arrived.

I think Bill C-377 is going to take us more time rather than less time. I support Mr. Cullen's idea, for example, to bring the IPCC forward to give us some clarity on two-degree, three-degree, five-degree changes going forward. I support the idea of examining the California plan. We heard yesterday that the California plan is to a certain extent aligned with Bill C-377. It's clearly not aligned with where we're going as a country, but it's aligned with Bill C-377, and it's certainly more aligned with Bill C-30.

There's also uncertainty in the European Union. The French president is now saying they're taking the notion of trade sanctions to the European Union to react to countries like Canada, who unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the treaty they've signed. There's uncertainty.

I think this is something we have to examine in some detail. I don't know whether we're going to get to it, Mr. Chair, and get to all these witnesses before the government decides to have the House rise. There's even uncertainty as to when the House is rising.

We're now in a situation where if we can roll out a plan that makes sense, I want to table it.

I think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that we cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. It does speak to a larger question, and once again the greater uncertainty created domestically and internationally by the government's plan.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

First of all, we don't have a steering committee at the moment, right?