Environment Committee on March 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I call our meeting to order.

Our first item of business will be to look at the report of the steering committee. Everybody should have a copy of that in front of them. That report was from our meeting of March 12. You can see who attended and the subcommittee's report, and also a calendar of events that was agreed to by the steering committee.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as a brief explanation to committee members who weren't present, the tone and meter of the meeting were quite good. We were able to establish a way forward. We were able to make concessions and have agreement. I think our offer of an olive branch to the parliamentary secretary to attend the subcommittee and be a part of that conversation and bring the intelligence of what the government is about and up to was beneficial, and we were able to establish what I think committee members can see here is a reasonable schedule. with some very interesting and important topics.

I think it is essential for us to get into the substance of Mr. Layton's bill as quickly as possible and hear the comments and arguments so that we can move on and realize these other ambitions that I hope all committee members share, which is to delve into the issues of the environment that are gripping this country today--consistently some of the most important issues that Canadians face and that they tell us, as parliamentarians, they want represented here in the House.

I'm sure all members have seen the minutes of the meeting, have seen the results of the meeting, which I think was quite productive, and that we can bring it to a vote and carry on with the business we are all elected to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments? Everybody's had a chance to look at these proceedings. Are there any comments?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I too found the meeting very productive, which was a pleasant surprise. I appreciated the willingness of everyone at that meeting to work together to come up with an agenda.

From that meeting, the Minutes of Proceedings that we each have lists a recommended schedule of meetings, and today's listing there is completing clause-by-clause of Bill C-377. Then starting April 2, this Wednesday, we'd be starting on Bill C-474. It would be nice if we could do it that quickly. I'm not optimistic that we will be able to complete Bill C-377 today. Now, if we do, that would be great, but at this point it might be a little bit of a tight push.

We could possibly have April 2 also for clause-by-clause on Bill C-377 and then, starting April 7, beginning the process of Bill C-474. So that would just be moving everything back one meeting, and I hope there would be agreement by committee to do that. We'd just delay everything by one meeting, so we would start Bill C-474 on April 7, and today and on April 2 we would have clause-by-clause for Bill C-377.

That's my suggestion, and I hope there will be acceptance of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, until now, it seems to me that the opposition has acted in good faith toward the government, so much so that it has agreed to involve the Parlimaentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment in its work leading up to the study of bills. We discussed the matter and the aim of involving the parliamentary secretary was precisely to avoid discussions. I honestly believed that adopting this new schedule today would be a mere formality, but I see that this is not the case. I will refrain from getting into the gist of the matter right now. Instead, I will ask my colleagues Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Cullen to state their positions, since we are talking about major changes to the study of Nathan's bill. Indeed, if we alter our course of action, the two bills will be directly affected.

I thought that the approach we agreed upon would make our job easier. However, I get the feeling that it is complicating matters quite a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

One of the great advantages of having the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee is that he can convey to the committee the government's reaction to certain pieces of legislation, as well as how much time they wish to spend on them. So having him here helps us to know what the government's intentions are.

If the parliamentary secretary is saying that we may require extra time to discuss Bill C-377 and we can't do that today, an alternative strategy would be to schedule an extra meeting tomorrow to complete the task. That way we can maintain the schedule the steering committee agreed to. We may not even get to that point, because we don't know what's going to happen today, but we could use that as our safety valve and keep to the schedule for witnesses who have been lined up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

I can let you know that the clerk, with my instructions, has gone ahead and planned according to this, and we do have witnesses lined up. That has been done. That, of course, can be undone, but I'm just letting you know that is the case.

Mr. Cullen.

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

I appreciate the comments so far.

I think the decisions we made regarding timing have built in Mr. Warawa's concerns already. We agreed to finish this bill first because--let's be frank--this bill has been delayed and talked out and the clock has run out, and we don't want to return to that. There has to be a re-establishment of trust in order for us to establish any kind of calendar. That was the element of trust that I and, I think, other members at the subcommittee required: that we not keep delaying the bill at committee meeting after committee meeting. We want to actually see the bill done.

The parliamentary secretary's concerns are actually satisfied in what we decided to do in--I think--our best collective intelligence, which was to see the article today. I remind committee members that we're almost done. The bill is on the edge of being finished. We've moved through most of the substantive clauses. We've worked hard on amendments, and there are only a few to go. I think it would behoove us to start into this and accept what the subcommittee has already offered us.

If at the end of the meeting there are real substantive problems that people still want to work through, negotiate, and deliberate on regarding amendments, then we'll be open to that conversation. But I think we've already taken into consideration any unforseeable problems. We've been with this bill for months. This bill is not new to us. I think that anything else will be a breaking of that trust rather than a re-establishment of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that have been made. I believe goodwill was established at our meeting on March 12, and I appreciate being involved with that.

Mr. Godfrey's suggestion is, I think, quite wise. If we proceed and we do not complete today—though we might—then we could meet tomorrow to keep the schedule intact. Then on Wednesday we would begin Bill C-474. I think that's a good suggestion. And we could meet for as long as we would deem necessary on Tuesday.

I have a question for you, Chair. Would we have access to a meeting room?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I expect that we could find a meeting room if we needed one tomorrow.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That looks like a good suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think probably we should go to a vote. We've had the suggestion.

I believe, Mr. Godfrey, you've made that suggestion.

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

Sure.

I have one other suggestion that might help. I know we are all are implicated in a vote at 6:30 tonight. I don't know if other people have commitments at 5:30, but if we get to 5:30 and find that other people are able to stay on until 6:30, then that would be an additional proposal.

So I think there are two different ways in which we could deal with this problem if indeed it occurred.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we should vote on this steering committee report and then be prepared to move on and get started with Bill C-377. At 5:30, we'll see where we are, and then one or the other of our two alternatives will be available to us.

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

Is that a formal motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, not a formal motion, a suggestion that we re-evaluate at 5:25. I think I interpreted that correctly.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm okay with that. Going tonight won't work for me, but my day is somewhat flexible tomorrow. If necessary, we might tomorrow, but maybe we'll wait and evaluate it as we're closer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's vote on this and then at 5:25 we'll re-examine where we're at, if we've not finished, and move from there.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will proceed with Bill C-377. Just to bring us up to date, I believe we are on clause 10.

Mr. Cullen, I think you moved NDP amendment 5 on page 16.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Cullen's motion, NDP-5?

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This clause seeks to have the minister make a clear and transparent statement to Canadians. It establishes the correct baseline, and the minister has to be transparent about that baseline. We've talked about this issue before.

Too much of the discussion and debate in Canada around climate change has been government trying to massage or obscure numbers. Therefore we seek clarity through this amendment. It's very straightforward, and we look forward to its passage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We're speaking to Mr. Cullen's amendment on clause 10, is that correct?