Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order, please.

There are three housekeeping items to deal with, and perhaps we could do those first. The first is a point of order by Mr. Godfrey regarding witnesses for Bill C-474

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is to all members. The clerk simply needs to know the names of witnesses for Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act, by Wednesday from all parties. So I would ask you to do so if you haven't submitted names for that, because our first session will be on Monday next. I will be counting on introducing the bill and with it some of the proposed amendments that are in response to criticisms that have been made in the House by various members. I want to indicate the kinds of changes that I'd be bringing forward anyway so people don't waste their time attacking things I agree with them on.

I would also expect to bring in people from the Suzuki Foundation and from the Natural Step because some of their principles are incorporated in the principles of the bill. So that's one point, Mr. Chair.

Secondly, I would ask the indulgence of members when the Commissioner of the Environment comes forward, in the two sessions that we have set aside for him, and to carve out a bit of time--not endless amounts of time--for him to make comments at that time on Bill C-474, because it does affect the role of the commissioner himself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are we going to ask that?

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

That was simply to formalize taking advantage of his presence on one of those two days, and not for too long.

So those are my two points, and I simply wanted, in the spirit of transparency, to share those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Bigras, did you have a comment about that?

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

As agreed, you will have my list of witnesses before Wednesday. However, I would also very much like Justice Canada to testify before the committee on Mr. Godfrey's bill, as I am concerned about some constitutional aspects. We have endorsed the principle of the bill, but we are concerned about several constitutional aspects, specifically the provisions respecting recycling. Objectives are being set. I would like to get Justice Canada's opinion on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, the clerk has that noted and will attempt to get someone from Justice. Do you want that at the start? Would that be preferred?

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

Yes, perhaps Justice Canada officials could shed some light on certain areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That would be after you, Mr. Godfrey.

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

Sure. I would simply say that rather than having them waste their ammunition in case I have declined to make some changes anyway, at least Justice would know what I was planning to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So maybe we should wait until at least the second meeting.

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

I have no objections to that happening at the second meeting. However, I want things to be different than they were for Bill C-377, when we had to bring in some major amendments and had very little time to do so. Although I said that I agreed with the principle of Bill C-474, the legislation has several flaws that will probably need to be corrected. I wouldn't want us to be caught short at the last minute. It's clear to me that in the case of Bill C-377, the testimony provided by constitutional experts was conclusive in terms of the amendments that were presented.

I would prefer to deal with this as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think Mr. Godfrey has indicated that he is going to make some of these changes and has probably checked that out. I think that would be helpful, but there is not much point in having them until he's done that.

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

What I was going to suggest is that I'm going to be touch with Mr. Bigras' office to make sure I understand exactly the nature of his concerns. We will try to anticipate those and indicate where we agree, and we'll make those changes during my presentation. Perhaps it would be useful to have the constitutional folks sitting in at that time so they could be present, and then we wouldn't have to wait around in a two-step function.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure. That sounds good.

There are two items here with dollar figures. The first one is for witnesses for Bill C-377 and the teleconference. Of course those expenses have already occurred and amount to about $2,345. I would like the committee's approval to pay those retroactively.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

For Mr. Godfrey's bill, for Bill C-474, the clerk has estimated $7,700. Again, I would like approval from the committee on that.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Finally in terms of housekeeping, there was a motion put by Mr. Cullen that the clerk make an attempt to get a televised room for tomorrow's meeting.

I don't really want a lot of debate on this. Can I go to the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

All right, thank you. The clerk will do what he can to get such a room.

We now go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have one issue--no speech, no additional comments--that was outstanding from our last meeting.

I'd like to move that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), the committee report to the House and recommend that Bill C-377 not be proceeded with due to the lack of economic analysis of its content.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is there any discussion?

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're now on clause-by-clause.

The usual way we do things is that we stand the first item, which is basically clause 1, and also the preamble, which is clause 2, until the end.

(Clauses 1 and 2 allowed to stand)

(On clause 3--Purpose)

No amendments have been put forward on this clause, which deals with the purpose of the bill.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I have just a quick comment here. Clause 3 reads as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

It sounds lofty, and it's actually what we need to do. That's why Canada has the Turning the Corner plan.

Clause 3 is saying that the purpose of this act is to “ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization”. We've heard from witnesses that it's an empty, hollow bill with no policy. It won't accomplish anything. There has been no costing on it, so we don't know what its impacts will be.

We were advised that it needed to have the impact studied. The fact is that the bill came from Mr. Layton, and he said it should be costed. These points have been made at length.

I think if this bill, Bill C-377, had been presented by the government--if you look at this 180 degrees differently--then nobody around would be supporting this. But because it's from the opposition, even though it's a terribly flawed bill that constitutionally will be struck down and will accomplish nothing, the opposition is stubbornly moving forward to support this.

We know that what clause 3 is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish what Canada needs. The Turning the Corner plan will accomplish what Canada needs to do.

So I can't be supporting this, but I just want to make those quick comments, that what this clause is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish that, and that's what we've heard from the witnesses.