Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

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

I have a couple of things.

One is to offer an olive branch to my esteemed colleague. What date would he propose?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's his bill. I'm going to let him try to wiggle out of this one, but my experience is that it's a minimum of 18 months to get this through.

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

Is that a friendly amendment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, I'm going to let you deal with it, but I would suggest the average is about 18 months.

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

To finish my point, Chair, as the record will show, I made an offer to the parliamentary secretary to substantially contribute to this bill, and he chose not to take that offer.

The government has been working with this consultative process going back to the beginning of 1992, in great substance since 2000, and then beyond. It's not as if the conversation got started from ground zero. This has been going on for many years, and we've heard that from witnesses. We've heard the round tables and various iterations of this government, previous governments, on and on. Any suggestion of delay, more time, and more consultation is the problem in Canada. I don't think that would meet the smell test for most Canadians.

The Alberta government proposed regulations in March to bring in in July. We're suggesting December, if regulations pass under this bill. If the parliamentary secretary has a better idea, he can move an amendment. He has chosen not to do that.

I think we need to move on. Unless the government is willing to step up to the plate with serious and credible regulations, having spent more than two years in office without a single one coming forward, the credibility gap is simply too wide.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It is coming forward. It is a process to follow, which I have brought to your attention.

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

These processes go on for so long, and Canadians lose heart so consistently with governments who make promises about getting tough on polluters but don't bring the regulations forward. What this bill attempts to do, in black and white with clear legislation, is to no longer allow the excuse that we need to consult more and gather more data. We simply need to set the targets in conjunction with our partners in industry and the provinces and then get on with the job. That is what this bill proposes to do.

I look forward to the government's support of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I have a question. I don't know if Mr. Cullen will ever be in government, and maybe that's part of the reason he can have these rather unrealistic targets.

David may have an answer, or Mr. Godfrey or Mr. Tonks. They've been on the government side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Through the chair, please.

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

Through the chair, Mr. Mills. Certainly.

Do they not have concern with respect to the time we have? This bill isn't even through report stage, third reading, the Senate, and the whole bit. How are we going to be able to have that? I think it's highly unreasonable. I would be curious, from the government side, as to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, do you want to answer that?

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

Coming from a government member who last week was filibustering this very bill, suggesting that we need more consultation time bears a little credibility gap.

This bill does sets out to propose certainty for industry. The government has called for it. We've suggested it. They've chosen to make no amendments. The offer was made in public and on the record. It was not taken. We will move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Vellacott, let's not get into who's in government and who isn't.

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

I made my point on this, and that stands. That fact was there, and the NDP well know that.

I have every legitimate right to make my point here, Mr. Cullen, and I don't take any preaching from you on it. The idea is to get at something that's doable, and this is not realistic. It's not even through this committee yet. It has to go through other stages and other places, and you're wanting to get amendments on the fly. I don't think that's reasonable in the circumstance.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...three weeks.

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

Your moral outrage doesn't wash, and frankly a lot of us see through it pretty quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to come back to Mr. Godfrey's item and get this approved so we can put the wording correctly.

At the beginning of this, we would put--and Mr. Cullen, I hope you agree--“A regulation made under subsection (1)” instead of “regulations”. It would read: “A regulation made under subsection (1) to ensure”, etc.

We're voting on amendment NDP-3--

[A voice]

I think it has to remain plural.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It would be “regulations”, plural? Okay. It would end up reading like this: “Regulations made under subsection (1)”.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

A recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to welcome Mr. Tonks, a former chair of the environment committee.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would certainly welcome you to trade jobs....