Environment Committee on April 28th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Newman, if you could just finish up, our time is up.

[Warren Newman]

Frankly, I don't see any disagreement between Mr. Sadik's position and my own.

When I spoke of federal institutions, organizations, and crown corporations and the like, clearly that applies to the federal institutions. It applies to their activities. That's the whole point. It applies to their policy development. It applies to their orientation. How are they going to go about meeting this? It applies to them first and foremost. It doesn't apply directly to cities or anything else.

When I said that it applies to federal institutions, that is exactly what I meant.

Does it mean you can't spend money? No, I don't think it means that.

That could well be one of the activities targeted, to the extent that the federal government wants to exercise its spending power and encourage municipalities and provincial organizations to work with it.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Cooperation with the municipalities is impossible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Roy, could we just move on?

We'll have Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I want to come back to the issue of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Sadik, your answer was interesting. You felt that because Mr. Thompson was satisfied with the idea of vetting, therefore you're satisfied. I want to come back to this again, because essentially this would entail a pretty big departure from the traditional role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We're treading water on whether or not they become advocates and then turn around and audit their own advocacy. Whether or not an interim Commissioner of the Environment wants to change his own role, the question is whether or not it's advisable to change that role. So I'm not satisfied that you're satisfied with his answer.

Is it wise for us to be putting the auditor in the position of advocate as well and auditing his own advocacy for that matter? I think that proposes some real challenges, and I'm not necessarily sure that's the advisable way to go. So would you like to evaluate that again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me, Mr. Watson.

Mr. Godfrey and then Mr. Bigras, please. Point of order.

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

It's really a question of point of order to Mr. Watson. I just want to make sure he's operating off the amended text I spoke to when I first presented, which removed all reference to an independent commissioner and envisaged using the existing power of the existing commissioner, because I don't want him attacking something I've already given up on, if you know what I mean.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Fair enough. I'm not sure we have any official amendments yet, Mr. Chair, so I am commenting on the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, I believe a new edition has come out, Mr. Watson. It will eliminate that point.

Mr. Bigras.

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

This brings me to another question about procedure. How are we planning to dispense with the amendments that have been brought forward? Must we take into account that these are proposed amendments to the bill, or have we already in fact deleted part of the bill and replaced it with this new draft?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No. As I understand it—Mr. Godfrey, you can correct me—these changes have occurred. That is a new draft, if you want. They're not amendments. They won't be debated. They are simply a suggested new draft of Mr. Godfrey's bill, which he has accepted.

Is that correct, Mr. Godfrey?

Let's clarify this, Mr. Watson.

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

As the proposer of the bill, in order to avoid wasting the time of the committee in having them advance changes I agree with, having heard their arguments in the House and elsewhere, I decided that in the spirit of advancing things, I would indicate the kinds of changes I would welcome, which could be put forward by any of the parties—the government, Monsieur Bigras. It does not have an official standing because we still have to amend the existing text that was originally delivered, and I'm also looking for improvements. So this is not an official document, but it shows where we might make improvements, and if there are other ideas, we would accept and review those as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The amendments are due on the May 8. So these are suggestions Mr. Godfrey can live with to save going through--but they will, as he says, be amended in the official amendments that are due on the 8th.

Mr. Watson, I have subtracted that time, so if you want to, go ahead.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We have no formal amendments. The question is very much in order with respect to the legislation in front of us. And more importantly, we do have a comment for environmental groups that they would be satisfied, or at least there is some question about whether they're satisfied about that type of a role existing. I'd at least like their commentary on whether they want to clarify their position, whether that is something that would be a good situation or not a good situation. So I think the question is entirely in order. We'll deal with the amendments when they get here.

[Pierre Sadik]

The model act we drafted was principally around making some substantial progress in the way the federal government carries out sustainable development strategies. You're quite correct that in the original version of our draft we included a provision for an independent environment commissioner. That was in late 2006. Since then, I believe Mr. McGuinty introduced a measure to try to establish an independent environment commissioner, but that failed. I've seen objections to that provision in the bill, as introduced by Mr. Godfrey.

Seeing the writing on the wall and keeping our eye on what the principal objective of this bill is, we've stepped back from the belief that an independent commissioner is fundamental to the carrying out of this act. At the end of the day, we are satisfied with the clause Mr. Thompson approves of.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

To all members of the panel, are the regulatory timeframes in the bill realistic? I'm looking at clause 10 especially, but there may be some others. Are some of these realistic, knowing how long it takes to craft draft regulations? Can I have your comments on that?

[Pierre Sadik]

I can offer one brief comment, and then leave it to my colleagues.

I believe the timeline in clause 10 is the one we had in the model act. The point about the 30 days to table the regulations for the targets has been raised a number of times. Over the three years the cabinet committee, chaired by the environment minister, has been working on the sustainable development strategy. The members would have had the regulations needed to carry out the objectives of the strategy in the backs of their minds. The presumption is that most of the homework around the regulations will have been done by the time the sustainable development strategy is tabled in the House.

[Prof. Glen Toner]

It makes sense to me that this will be worked on for months before the bill is tabled...and presumably the government. But I don't know--30 days, 60 days--I don't have a strong point of view one way or the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask more about the federal-provincial relationships that are involved as a result of this bill. It seems to me that when the federal government funds infrastructure, it does so in a collaborative way in partnership with provincial and municipal governments. It seems reasonable, in seeing those federal dollars spent, and being accountable to the taxpayers from whom the federal government receives money, that it ought to try to ensure that money is spent in a sustainable way in relation to the environment. It's also reasonable to say that our objectives with this program are to do things that help green the country more, whether it's in Victoria, Halifax, Quebec City, or wherever.

Is it your sense that this bill imposes something on other levels of government, or is it a question of trying to find common ground? What are you comments on this?

[Prof. Glen Toner]

I think it seeks out ways to work together, recognizing that these are national challenges and they don't just operate in one city or one province--they're everywhere. Frankly, to make this a transformative process by which we really get the country on a sustainable path, it's going to require all governments to contribute, participate, and share. So I view it as a collaborative and positive opportunity for governments to work together.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Do you see another way to get the Government of Canada to do its part, in collaboration with other levels of government, to achieve these objectives?

[Prof. Glen Toner]

I don't think it relies on this law, but this law could hopefully facilitate an outreach from the federal government to other levels of government, and perhaps from cities and provincial governments to the federal government, to work collaboratively to green the country.

[Pierre Sadik]

I have a comment on that, Mr. Regan. We are dealt the constitutional hand that we are dealt in this country, and we have to work within the confines of the Constitution on a wide spectrum of issues.

There is a precedent for this type of policy, though, in the U.K. It had to deal with a situation where there was a series of devolved authorities. Yet, as a whole, the island of the U.K. wanted to come up with a sustainable development strategy. It has, in fact, come up with one that you may hear, from some other witnesses talking more about the international context, is held up as a bit of a gold standard of national SDSs. It managed to do that through this type of legislation, with cooperation and teamwork by the various jurisdictions that the U.K. comprises.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, it's a little hard for me to imagine any Canadian not wanting the Government of Canada to do its part to cooperate with other levels of government to achieve the objectives we're talking about here.