Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was godfrey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We will get started.
As everybody knows, we are working on clause-by-clause. I think everyone has a copy of the amendments.
I would ask, off the top, to stay clauses 1 and 2, which is a normal procedure, and that we deal with them at the end.
3:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The first amendment is on page 10, amendment G-5. I would ask Mr. Warawa to move that.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Good. So we're all using that as a reference.
I'll just read clause 3:
The purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for developing and implementing a National Sustainable Development Strategy that will dramatically accelerate the elimination of major environmental problems and make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.
The amendment I've introduced is to change the word “national” to “federal”. We did hear from a number of witnesses that this is, I believe, a recommended change. When we heard from Mr. Martin on Monday of this week, he spoke to that specifically in his speech to us. He said “national” implies that there is direct provincial involvement.
As we all know, we have not had direct provincial involvement. We haven't had the provinces, other than New Brunswick. This is one of the issues that Mr. Bigras brought to our attention when we were looking at the schedule in the first group of witnesses. I don't know if it was turbidity or density, or what Mr. Bigras brought up, but it was a very important point that he brought to the attention of the committee, the importance of what the implications are of Bill C-474 for the provinces.
I just want to read, to remind us what Mr. Martin said, that, first, the bill would require the development of a national as opposed to a federal sustainable development strategy—and in the interests of time, instead of saying “sustainable development strategy”, I'll say “SDS” from now on.
As the committee is aware, responsibility for the environment is not defined in the Constitution Act. Over time, a variety of mechanisms have been developed to facilitate federal-provincial cooperation in improving environmental quality in Canada, including a wide range of work done under the authority of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
As a practical matter, if we expect the provinces to be full and willing partners in the implementation of a national sustainable development strategy, it would be important to engage them in its development, including the definition of its goals and targets and in a discussion of which level of government would be held accountable for their achievement.
The other person I would like to read a quick quote from here is, in our first group of witnesses, Mr. Pierre Sadik, who said in his presentation:
By virtue of the Constitution, this bill can only apply to items that fall within federal jurisdiction.
Sustainable development affects all levels of government and needs to affect all levels of Canadian society, and it does in a positive or negative way. I believe the author of the bill, Mr. Godfrey, is hoping to achieve positive results from a positive bill and to have positive effects on a truly sustainable development strategy, or SDS.
I started off my comments suggesting that we have the bill changed so that it lists “federal” instead of “national”. That is what the motion is.
I have a subsequent motion that I'll be making later.
Throughout the bill, the word “national” SDS is used. This is the first clause we're addressing, so that's why this is the first opportunity to deal with this.
In the bill, as we go clause by clause, every time it says “national”, I'll be making that amendment. But starting off with this, I think it's very obvious that we focus on making sure the different federal departments are held to account.
As we remember, when the environment commissioner presented the report, we had this report in October. Then we had the report in March, I believe it was. Actually, this was the report from March, and we heard that of the 14 departments, nine were unsatisfactory and five were satisfactory. For many years--over a decade--there have been problems with our not doing satisfactory work with the different departments. What I'm hoping is that the focus will change and now be on the federal government instead of the national and on holding the federal government and the departments to account.
I look forward to hearing from others, but I think changing the word “national” to “federal” is a step in the right direction.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We accept the change throughout from “national” to “federal”.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I shall be brief, Mr. Chair.
It's the avenue that we have favored since we started studying this bill in committee. We think that efforts must be made by the federal departments. Mr. Warawa mentioned parts of the report of the environment commissioner. It says that a number of federal departments must make extra efforts. Canada must, of course, adopt a sustainable development strategy but we think that the first efforts should be made by the federal government.
In that sense, we support the government amendment.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Does this mean that it will only include the departments or will it include as well the crown corporations? Does it exclude part of the federal government? I listened carefully to what Mr. Warawa said. For him, the word “national” implies the way it will affect the provinces. By replacing “national” by “federal”, will he exclude any part of the federal government?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Not at all. We will specify later in the bill which are the departments and crown corporations which are included. We will have some technical discussions about that list but the intent is to have a list as complete as the present list of the environment commissioner, who prepares reports on sustainable development.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No. I think Mr. Godfrey answered that.
I just want to elaborate one quick thought. When we heard from the witnesses--and unfortunately you weren't here, but hopefully you have the materials--there was no consultation with the provinces--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
--and if you don't have that, how can we move forward? If the bill is to move forward, we have to focus on the federal government.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I assume this is the basic rub in that the difference between the two is the fact that when you say “national”, you would have to have had all these consultations in advance.
Is that normally how we're understanding how the process works across the country on the difference of definition here?