Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Everyone is trying to claim to be the biggest environmentalist and the most prepared to work for the environment.

I propose that we move on to the study of Bill C-377 and that we resolve this matter, as planned. As the Chair said, I don't even know what we've been discussing for the past 15 minutes. I missed the first 15 minutes of the committee meeting, and I'm sure we're still at the same point as at the start of the meeting one hour ago. Let's stick to the schedule. Let's begin the study of Bill C-377, as Mr. Warawa proposed. Let's debate the motion under consideration.

Are my colleagues ready to discuss Bill C-377? We can even move on to the vote. This is really a waste of time. I believe my colleagues are all ready to talk about Bill C-377.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

We'll have Mr. Lussier.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like us to establish some very specific rules. First, I would like us to immediately determine the date for submission of the witness list. That hasn't yet been mentioned. On what date do you want to have the witness list? Could we set a date?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

-I would say by the end of next week, so the clerk would have time to work on this over the period. I don't think too much is going to happen between now and next Friday on this item.

Obviously, depending on which proposal we go with, then we would come up with the six meetings. I don't have the dates in front of me, but obviously, if we follow the order, we would be looking at the debriefing on Bali as our first meeting in the last week of January. I believe our time changes probably in the 9-to-11 slot, and we would then proceed for the next two weeks, for the next four meetings, to deal with the other topics.

So that's how I would see the format, if that's accepted.

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

I haven't finished speaking, Mr. Chair.

So we've set a date for submitting the witness list. So we have to allow the clerk a little time to contact the witnesses and to determine whether they are available. When will we receive a list of available witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would see that happening in the first part of January, in the first 10 days or so, and then having comments back, and then going from there. Then obviously a steering committee could look at the comments that have come back from the members, and we would be ready to go when we get back here on whatever date it is.

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

Mr. Chair, will each committee member receive the list proposed by all the other parties?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, I'm proposing it, but obviously I haven't got agreement on that.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, Chair, I think if you sought it, you would get consensus here. We have a very easy solution, as I said. Before, the NDP had a reasonable proposal. I think there's consensus here. The Liberals do not support that. They've made an amendment. If you called the question, you would find very clearly that there is consensus. I don't know why they're trying to make this so complicated. It's very easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, let's repeat the motion. What's the motion?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

They've made an amendment that this be referred to a steering committee, as opposed to each of us putting in the list and trusting you and the clerk to provide a balanced panel. We're talking about meetings that are going to be in February.

That was their amendment. Let's call the question on the amendment, and let's move on. It's very disappointing to see this type of manipulation of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's look at the amendment, then.

The amendment, I believe, Mr. Godfrey, is that we have a steering committee meeting prior to determining the list of speakers.

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

The way the process I envisage would work is that, just as Mr. Lussier has described, there would be a request to everybody to submit their names.

We accept the four chunks here, so that's all fine. My only suggestion is that when all the names have been submitted by the parties, before the invitations are sent out by Norm, there be a discussion by the steering committee just to make sure the thing is balanced, because you and Norm may not know the names as well as those who have submitted them. So if the four party representatives, including you, say okay, let's make sure we've got a nice balanced list for each of them.... Nobody's disputing what we're doing here; they're just trying to make sure this is the most efficient. And then, based on those negotiations, send out the invitations, let everybody know how it's going, and you've cut out a whole process. You can even have back-up witnesses. If A can't make it , B can make it. I just think you could do that in two hours. And we did it, as Mr. Warawa well knows, when Mr. Hawn was in the chair on Bill C-30. That's exactly what we did: we got all the stuff in, we looked at it, we did a certain amount of negotiation to make sure it was balanced, and then it was done.

That's the only time I want the steering committee involved, just to expedite the process. I have no hidden agenda here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I think back to Bill C-288, when we had a steering committee, not the legislative committee, the Liberal Bill C-288, and the steering committee got very nasty and it came back to committee. We wasted a huge amount of time instead of moving on and hearing witnesses. There were a lot of arguments and lot of wasted time--as we've already seen, a lot of wasted time.

We had consensus. We were moving forward. We could have been all finished with this agenda, but no, we've spent the last 40 minutes or half-hour trying to go to a subcommittee. The logic of Mr. Godfrey is that four people is better than one person. Well, he said four is better than one. Then by that logic, thirteen will be better than one, or thirteen will be better than four.

That's what we saw happen with Bill C-288. The steering committee was totally ineffective and it stalled the whole process.

If we just support what is being proposed here by the NDP and move on, we will be much more efficient than by going the Liberal way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, can you provide some clarity to this amendment that we're dealing with?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Absolutely. I think Mr. Warawa is completely right--thirteen minds are better than four or five. That's why every member on this committee has the opportunity to put forward their names for consideration by the steering committee. That's why we constructed a steering committee.

We had a vote on that, Mr. Warawa. This committee, master of its own destiny, decided to create such a steering committee. You may not like that. You were, at the time, visibly shaken up by it. You spoke up publicly against it. I'm sorry. We took a decision here as a committee. The chair is bound by the decision. We have a steering committee. My call is perfectly reasonable.

We'd like to receive all the names. We'd like to work as four parties together. We'd like to use the steering committee for the purpose for which it was constituted and voted upon and debated at length. You are trying to do an end run on a decision of this committee, and you can't do it. You're getting caught. Now, if you don't trust the steering committee process, take it up with the chair. He's a member of your caucus, as well as being an excellent chair.

But we are here, ready to do business. We're ready for the vote as well on the amendment that we have a steering committee meeting to sift through all of those names and recommendations. You may not like that process, but that's the process this committee voted to follow when we were constituted.

Now, don't refer me back to committees when we were looking at Bill C-288. That was then; this is now. We had a vote. We had a full and frank debate about it. You may not like the outcome. I can't control that, I'm sorry. We've all had our say on this matter. I think we should call the vote and I think we should have the steering committee examine the lists that are being put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Everybody understands the amendment. The amendment is that the lists come in by next Friday. I assume that's agreed to by everybody. That list then goes to the steering committee, and that then goes to the rest after that.

Is everybody clear on that?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now, with the motion as amended, which is basically that we follow this, I understand that meeting number six becomes number two, and everything then moves down one. Obviously people have their witnesses in, we come up with that list, and then the clerk goes to work over the break period and comes up with the meetings.

Is that clear? Is everybody clear on that?

Mr. Vellacott.

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

After that, when is it being brought back to this main group here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As I see it, and I think everyone agrees, we get the list by next Friday. We have a steering committee meeting probably in the following week to look at the names that have come in. We come up with those names. We then come back to the clerk. The clerk then tries to get those people. We then send that list out to the entire membership. The membership then comes back with any comments they have, and we then go from there.

But not Tuesday. Tuesday is already set. We decided that at the start.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, that's good. That's where I was going to go. The meeting number six that is now number two--and I don't have any problem with that--when will that likely happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I suggest that would happen our first meeting back in January.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

May I ask, for purposes of planning and everything else, that we not only assume that but make that part of our plan, so we don't suddenly stay here on Thursday and then we're caught flat-footed trying to scramble and do number six because we suddenly have a day. Could we confirm that will happen in the new year? And that gives us time to be ready for that, because those people have to do a little bit of prep work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just to be clear, that would be on Standing Order 108(2) and not just on the bill, so we would call the report on Bali part of that because it is broader and we want a debriefing on Bali, in effect.