Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order.

There are several things I'd like to remind members about.

First, we're looking at Bill C-377, obviously, and you've seen the NDP tentative work plan. We do have some names put forward.

We have to remember that the bells will go at 5:15 p.m., so we will be leaving fairly soon to go and vote.

Also, members, there is the possibility, as there always is at the end of a session, that we might not be here next Thursday.

What we really need is a list of names and a format we can go by so that our clerk, Norm, can work over the holiday period and make sure that we have the sessions set up for after Christmas.

I would like to ask you, first of all, if you want this in camera. Normally future business is done in camera. I don't know if it's of any concern today.

What's the feeling of the group?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I don't care whether we're in camera or in an open meeting. I'm fine either way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan, do you have an opinion on that? No problem?

Mr. Lussier, no problem?

Is there any problem with it being open? Okay, we'll proceed then.

There's a suggestion that on Tuesday we begin our study of Bill C-377 by having Mr. Layton, the mover of this bill, to introduce it, and by having Donnelly and Bramley as speakers, possibly looking at the first hour or thereabouts for Mr. Layton and the next hour for our two witnesses, or some combination of that.

The suggestion then is that we agree to a tentative work plan and, most importantly, get a list of and prioritize the people you would like to have as witnesses. That then lets the clerk have the freedom to arrange the meetings, arrange the witnesses, and not have to wait for us to come back to make those decisions.

Hopefully we can proceed that way and make this a relatively short meeting.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I've looked at the proposed meetings from the NDP. They have proposed six meetings. Is it your plan to start off with an overview of the proposed meetings and then deal with the first one, or do you want to do them one at a time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I guess I'm going a little further, saying that I would hope that we could possibly make a decision on that first meeting right now, which would be, as I suggested, Layton, Donnelly, and Bramley. That would get us started. Then we could proceed through the list and make changes or additions.

I don't want to look at all of the witnesses here and discuss each witness. I don't think that's very productive at this point. We should prioritize them and then we'll get the witnesses we can get, as suggested by members of the committee.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you again, Chair.

I have no problem with that. There's a limited amount of time, so we're talking about Tuesday of next week. That gives them a few days to make appropriate plans. Hopefully Madam Donnelly and Mr. Bramley would both be available; I'm optimistic.

So I'm totally fine with that, but I would like to make one addition to that first meeting. The proposal is for an introduction of Bill C-377, and then hearing from the NDP leader, Mr. Layton, and then those other two witnesses. What's being proposed here is the first hour for Mr. Layton and then the second hour for the other two witnesses.

In terms of the purpose and the topic of that meeting, I'm hoping that some of the very important points are going to get covered in that meeting. What I would like to see addressed in that is target-setting, as in how the targets of the bill were set. And that's the heart of the bill, these targets. Our being able to support or not support the bill is dependent on the science of those. Where did the targets in the bill come from? How were those targets set? And what was the analysis used to propose those targets? I think those are very important points.

So if we let the witnesses know that this is what we're going to be asking, then they'll be ready to answer those types of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I certainly think we can suggest to them that these are some of the major areas that we would like them to cover, and the clerk can do that.

I should tell you we understand at this point that Mr. Layton would be available, that Donnelly would be available, and that Bramley would be available via teleconference. We would have two witnesses live and one on a teleconference.

And certainly we can suggest anything we want. Of course, we never quite know exactly whether they will listen to us or not.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

I hear what the member is suggesting. We are interested in having Mr. Layton come forward. It's probably procedure here, but it makes sense to have him to outline what his bill is about for the first hour.

The only amendment I would suggest is this. Mr. Bramley, you're correct, is someone we would like to have right after Mr. Layton, and there are tentative plans in place for him to teleconference with us from Bali.

I just want to mention, Chair, that Ms. Donnelly is not an author to the report entitled The Case for Deep Reductions, so that would be a little out of place. We would see that coming later.

So the beginning tee-up would be Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

There's one thing I've always tried to maintain and hopefully made really clear to all the members, and that is that we like to have a balance on every single panel we have. That allows immediately for members, when they have a point, to ask someone who might not have the same point of view. Throughout all of the meetings we have always attempted to at least have some balance in them, and that's the reason.

To change that format at this point, I think, certainly might cause some difficulties, because then we would have to have another panel that would be all on the other side of the issue, and I think that would be equally unpleasant for some of our members.

I'm at the will of the members, but I really do believe that's the best way to approach it and it has worked in the past.

So that's the rationale, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, thank you for that explanation. I apologize, if I am, for slowing things down in substituting for Mr. Cullen. I hear your point. It's well taken and I can live with that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

One other issue is that the norm is that we have allowed you and the clerk to provide appropriate witnesses for the appropriate topic. Each party represented here would submit a witness list and then leave it to your discretion. I'm totally fine with our doing that.

When we have so many meetings on this, the other norm is that we don't have a witness coming repeated times, because there are so many experts on this. So Mr. Bramley would be at this time, but his name is further on here again. Well, we would have somebody else who is an expert witness on that.

Again, in the spirit of fairness, there are a lot of expert witnesses out there for the five or six meetings we're going to have. Let's make sure we hear a good representation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, some of us have had the experience where we've had the same witness appear five or six times. I don't think that is productive in that they repeat their message over and over. So I take that advice.

Our attempt will be to go down the witness list, as provided by the members and, as you say, slot them into the areas they fit, with the idea being that we'll do our very best to get the witnesses as requested by members for a specific topic. That means that obviously one person would not appear over and over again on different topics.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I'm following the rationale of the committee and its experience. I would just ask for clarification. Would we then be allowed to substitute that for someone else?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But prior to your doing your selection. We would look at that now and know that you would find that difficult, so we could put somebody else in from that institute to cover it off?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's just to get us a balance. We want to have a balance with all sides represented. That is certainly the way I want to chair it, and I believe it works fairest for everybody.

First of all, if we could deal with Tuesday, it's critical that we make a decision on that. I would like to know any comments you might have about Layton, Donnelly, Bramley on Tuesday in order to give the clerk directions that this should be set up immediately. Are there any comments about that, first of all?

Yes, Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, the NDP document does refer to a representative from the Pembina Institute. Mr. Bramley may be available, either here or via telecommunications. However, it should be mentioned that the Pembina Institute's position was set out in the document entitled “A Case for Deep Reductions,” and that that document is co-signed by David Suzuki.

However, if Mr. Bramley cannot appear, David Suzuki could perhaps come and defend that document at next Tuesday's meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the question. I would ask you to give us time to come up with a name so we can keep the institute in the mix. They have more to say than just the one report. If you would just allow us to substitute that name and give another name so that we're following the direction of the chair, we'd be okay, if that satisfies your concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, and I would also understand that if for some reason Mr. Bramley weren't available, someone from the institution might be.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We'd be looking for someone specifically tied to this report, but the general answer to your question is yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, we hope that Mr. Bramley is available by whatever means.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Our understanding is that he's ready to make this a priority in his daily schedule too, so we're pretty sure we can do this. But if not, we'll have someone else, likely someone else who is attached to the creation of the report, because we have someone coming from the institute on the broader issues under number 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

All right. Are there any other questions or comments about Tuesday? Okay, so we're set then. We'll ask the clerk to make reference to both your points, Mr. Warawa, and we'll certainly suggest that setting targets, analysis, and so on should be part of a presentation, which I would hope they would be anyway.

As far as the remainder of the plan goes, I think we should talk about the plan, not the speakers. As I suggested, if each party could give us the list of speakers, we'll do our very best to make a balanced group for each of the topics we're dealing with. What I'd like to entertain right now would be the topics.

Let's use the framework we have in front of us. Are there any suggestions or changes that others might want to make? Let's go on that basis.

Go ahead, Mr. Ouellet.