Evidence of meeting #7 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 clerk.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

December 6th, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

As regards point 6, I'd like us to follow the good suggestion you made earlier. If ever Pierre-Marc Johnson appeared, it would be interesting to invite someone who is not connected with the government to report on the Bali Conference. Perhaps it would be preferable that it be an environmental group.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Again, following the format, I believe we would want to balance that. So obviously if we are getting one point of view, we want another point of view, if there is one that fits there.

It would be up to the clerk and me to go through the list and try to get the people for the dates we have. So it's a good suggestion.

We'll go to Mr. Godfrey.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Chair, I apologize, because I arrived late at the meeting, and perhaps I skipped a step and there was a meeting of the steering committee that I didn't know about. The last thing I knew was that we were going to have two or maybe three sessions on this bill. Then, because of events, we couldn't do anything today, so we're talking about Tuesday and possibly Thursday, although that's up in the air.

Do I understand that each one of these bullets represents a different session and that this is six sessions? And then, if that's the case, did we collectively arrive at the decision that this was worth six? Or am I missing something?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Godfrey, we haven't come to that decision, although we have come to a decision that we're having a meeting Tuesday and we have three speakers, hopefully, for that.

Now we are looking at the topics and obviously at the number of meetings. We have an NDP proposal in writing. I assume that it is for six meetings. Therefore, we now need to decide, as a committee, whether we want six meetings, ten meetings, or two meetings, and that decision needs to be decided here today so the clerk can work on it.

Mr. Godfrey.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Yes, for further clarification, this paper, which says, “Environment Committee Study of C-377, Proposed Meetings”, an NDP proposal. This is not the work of--

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

No, this is the NDP bill of Mr. Layton, and this is what has been produced by them. It's a place to start. Obviously any amendments.... We'll ask Mr. Christopherson what he thinks of those, as well as the group, and we'll go from there.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Referring to the proposed meetings from the NDP that we have in front of us—there are six—we're fine with those. Again, I'd like to elaborate a little bit on them.

We're not fine with the last one, because it's not relevant to Bill C-377 directly. If the committee wants to have a post-Bali debriefing, then that's fine. But we're talking Bill C-377, and from that logic, we can have a post-Heiligendamm, post-G8...whatever the committee wants to do. So I have no problem with that. I'd like to see the sixth meeting gone because it's not relevant specifically to Bill C-377, but the others I'm fine with.

If I could just, as I'm speaking, quickly go through them, there are a couple of items I'd like to have elaborated on a little bit.

The second meeting suggested is the scientist panel to discuss the scientific underpinnings of climate change and Bill C-377. Again, the witnesses are being recommended. There are a couple there: John Stone and Mr. Weaver. So each party will submit names, and you can--

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Any party can submit names, and we will balance them off.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

So the second one, the scientific panel, I'm totally fine with.

On the third proposed meeting, with the economists, what we would like to see discussed would be the economics of climate change and Bill C-377 and the mechanisms, the options, that are available to meet the Bill C-377 obligations--market-based mechanisms, fiscal measurements and incentives, regulated emission limits, performance standards, cooperative measures--and the feasibility of meeting these obligations. So it would deal with the mechanisms from the economic aspect.

Also, there's the cost of meeting the targets. What are the costs of meeting those obligations and the economic ramifications of forcing a government to meet those obligations? What will be the consequences?

So that's on the economics, which is proposed meeting three.

The fourth, the environmentalist panel, I have no problem with.

On meeting five, the jurisdictional experience panel, I have one quick addition. What is the constitutionality of Bill C-377? We've heard concerns over its constitutionality, so that needs to be addressed in the jurisdictional panel.

Those are my comments.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Ouellet.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at Mr. Warawa's comment on point 6. The period from 2012 to 2020 is precisely what will be at issue in Bali. They're also going to discuss targets and the climate change review. We know that the IPCC will be coming back again to provide clarification on the matter.

It seems to me that this is entirely related to Bill C-377. This is the very essence of this bill introduced by the NDP. An overview will have already been done, and specific matters will perhaps have been determined in Bali. It seems to me that the Bali Conference is the subject that it would be entirely appropriate to address before starting the study of Bill C-377.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Let me add, from the meeting that I was at last week, as you know, that it was agreed by some of the developed countries there—some 53 countries were represented—that for them the crisis is critical, that decisions must be made, and countries must engage fully.

The idea that became a sort of final communiqué was that Bali was our last chance, our starting point for negotiations that would go on for two years and would end with the Copenhagen conference of 2009. What basically was agreed to there was that this was a starting point, that this was where the rubber hits the road, where all countries need to engage and move on from.

I don't think we should get up expectations about Bali deciding a lot, because I don't think it's going to. Bali is going to be an agreement—by 180 countries, hopefully—to get going and really do something.

Just to put that in perspective, while I'm not sure what this panel might come up with, I don't think it will be a lot of real solutions, if you will. It'll be “here's where we're going”, and that would be very good to know, I think, for all of us certainly in this committee.

I think Mr. Christopherson is next.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I'll deal with that one last, and then mention the other two that were mentioned.

We're not going to die on this hill, but the fact is that we really believe, much as my colleague has already mentioned, that this panel will help set the context for the bill that's being put forward. Canada is going to have to come up with solutions of some sort or another. This is in front of us right now in a timely way, and hearing from Bali to get some sense—because I agree with you, we're not going to hear anything earth-shattering in the early report—of where this bill starts to put us, in terms of what they're trying to achieve at Bali, and whether the scope of it is big enough to deal with what we think is going to come towards us at the end of the process....

Flip it around the other way. To do it in the absence of putting it in the context of Bali leaves us a little bit in the dark. Hearing this panel helps us understand, having gone through the other panels, how this fits into the overall scheme they're hopefully going to be coming up with in Bali.

Again, I'm not going to die politically on this hill, but we really think it would be useful and of value, regardless of which way you feel about it; it'll just help all of us understand.

When Mr. Warawa mentions in point number three the economics—he's talking about the mechanism of implementing, and the cost of meeting the targets, etc.—that's all fine and well, and obviously we'd be open to that too, because it's part of the discussion. But what we are really seeking here in this instance is to know what the cost of doing nothing is, so that when we look at the economic questions that my friend has asked we look at, we have something to compare it to. As soon as you're spending dollar one, you want to hear whether or not dollar one is being compared with the cost of nothing, of another dollar, or of a million-dollar challenge. That is what we were looking for.

But I'm fine with the expansion, as I would see it, of looking at those other costs. That works for us.

On the third one—number five, the question of the constitutionality—obviously the member has some reason to believe there may be some questions around constitutionality. If that's the case, obviously we'd like to hear it.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I think there's always a question in our system, with the provinces, about who's doing what and who has the right to do what. I think that will always be raised in the issues. I agree it's something we need to deal with, because any federal government—it doesn't matter who it is—is going to have to deal with the provinces on this issue. So it's critical.

Mr. Godfrey.

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

I think I'm moving in approximately the same direction as Mr. Christopherson, but I think it makes sense for the Bali session to be held as number two. I suspect we probably won't be meeting a week today, given the reality of life around here, so our first session back ought to be a debriefing.

I think it would be very interesting to hear from people who are obviously considered eminent enough by the government to take the place of parliamentarians—I thought I'd get that in—rather than having us go. If they're eminent enough to take along as part of the official delegation, I think they're eminent enough to give us their views on what they learned. I think there may be nuances or colourings that will then help us in our subsequent work on the second, third, fourth, and fifth sessions.

What I also think, Chair, is that because we have time, in the sense that we won't be getting back to this until late January or early February, it would be perhaps useful to call a meeting at some point—maybe even a teleconference, or something like that—of the steering committee, so that the horse trading, or whatever needs to be done on the content and suggestions of names for balance here, can be agreed to with everybody participating, and so that there's no wondering, why did you leave off X? It's also so that nobody can then question, in the meeting of the whole, why we've done what we've done. I think that would strengthen your hand.

So those are my two suggestions: to move Bali up to number two, as the first thing when we come back; and then to have a steering committee meeting—I guess with Mr. Regan and others—to hash out the list.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

The other way to do that, Mr. Godfrey, would be by sending an e-mail to every member saying, here's what we've put together, and asking for a response within a reasonable time. Then we could react to that, and if everybody's fine with it, good; if not, then we could go the next step.

I'm just trying to make this as easy as possible and to give the clerk the most freedom.

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Chair, with respect, I think it's actually easier to have everybody in real time on a line, so that there are no misunderstandings and no burden placed on you or the clerk to try to interpret the sometimes contradictory wishes.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

The problem is that I'm the only government member on that call, and obviously that's putting me.... I've obviously agreed to the speakers list that we have. That's a very awkward position to put me in. The clerk and I have worked it out and we've done the best job we could do.

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Chair, you're in a much more difficult position if you don't call the steering committee, because your problem is then that not only do you not have an additional Conservative to offer views; you do not have any other party representatives, and you're now forced to adjudicate on a paper basis between claims that can be better resolved in a face-to-face meeting of goodwill.

So I don't think it pays to try to avoid having a steering committee meeting, when it's by far the most efficient way to proceed. I think you're actually doing yourself a favour, with respect, if you allow people just to hash it out.

People can submit stuff. It's basically to make sure we've covered all the bases. It's not a negotiating session; it's just basically to avoid misunderstandings. If there are any problems, they can be resolved by committee of the whole.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Warawa.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Chair, we debated this at length at our first meeting as this committee. The committee well knows my position on this, that it's undemocratic and it's against the normal policy and the normal procedure for the parliamentary secretary representing the government not to have a voice at a steering committee. Without that, we will move very slowly and we would like to cooperate and see this move very quickly. I believe the NDP wants to see this move quickly.

It is the Liberals trying to manipulate the witness list. We're cooperating with the witness list. We're saying, let everybody present their lists of witnesses, as the norm is. There's trust in you. Sometimes I would like to see you more helpful, but you are a very fair person, and we trust you and the clerk to provide a good balance.

We've agreed with what's being proposed by the NDP. Bill C-377 is their bill and we agree with what's being proposed. We've suggested some minor changes. They've agreed with that.

As far as the Bali meeting is concerned, I actually find that refreshing. When we came back, Chair, from Berlin I asked that every member--Mr. Godfrey was in Berlin with me and you, and it's good to have Mr. Ouellet back--report to this committee what happened, what we learned, and the committee didn't want to hear it. So now to hear that the committee would like to hear what happens at these conferences, I find that wonderful.

But you're quite right, we have to be realistic. What we're going to hear from Bali is the beginning of negotiations that, hopefully, we'll complete in 2009. So let's stay with the plan, the proposal from the NDP. I think it's fair, it's their bill, and let's not go down a Liberal path where we're trying to manipulate who can speak and who can't.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Okay.

Mr. McGuinty, you have--

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Chair, come on.

First of all, Mr. Warawa, with all due respect, no Canadian parliamentarian's been taken to Bali to come back and debrief this committee, which, in case you didn't notice, is a big difference from what happened in Berlin. So let's not compare these two.

Secondly, we had a debate; Mr. Warawa's right, and he's trying to bring through the back door what he couldn't bring through the front door. We had a vote on routine motions at this committee. We have routine motions. We've decided to have a steering committee. We have the construction and composition of the steering committee. You have a perfectly reasonable suggestion put to you, Chair, which I think would really help you, to convene a two-hour phone call and bring on the members of the steering committee and have a generalized discussion. We've been through this debate. You can't bring through the back door that which you haven't been able to bring through the front door.

I don't even know why we're debating this. I think it would be very positive to have the steering committee, Mr. Chair. It would put you at ease. You would be in conformity with the rules of this committee and it would be easy to structure. I'm sure colleagues on this side, working with you, are prepared to find a two- to three-hour period over the phone to do so.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

The only problem I have with that, Mr. McGuinty, is that, as you know, a steering committee recommends to the committee. If one group says no, we don't accept that, obviously, and then we have debate in the whole committee. So I don't think it's really....

I don't know how many phone calls you want to do over the holidays, but I know I would like to suggest that we get the list from everybody here, we contact the witness list, and we come up with a balanced list, as I said we would do. That balanced list is then sent out to the entire membership, and the members then look at this list and they comment.

Now, we could at that point have a conference call to say okay, this doesn't look balanced to me or that doesn't look balanced to me, or whatever. But I don't think just on a cold call coming up with names is the way to go. I think that'll be counterproductive and we'll end up in a debate at the first meeting with witnesses sitting there. I particularly don't want to chair that meeting, thank you very much.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

What we're having a debate about, Mr. Chair, is the way in which this committee is being run. What you are proposing is a choice between you and the clerk being the sole--