Environment Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So we're inserting the word “appropriate” before “documents”; and after “analysis”, we're adding “as the minister sees fit”.

[An hon. member]

Is this friendly?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

He's moving an amendment, so we have an amendment on the floor.

The amended motion will now read:

That the Minister of the Environment table before the committee the appropriate documents and analysis, as the Minister sees fit, that underline Canada's position presented at the Bonn Climate Change Talks, March 29 to April 8.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems entirely reasonable. Obviously, as all members of this committee know, we operate within cabinet confidentiality in this country. Certainly, items that would be contained in our approach would be sensitive. They would be commercially sensitive. They could have impacts on the market ,which you don't want to have leaked, for example, prior to an implementation. You certainly don't want speculation that can cause shareholders undue harm in this country and abroad and cause commercial harm to industry in Canada. That's why we have cabinet confidentiality.

I think the amendment put forward by the parliamentary secretary is entirely reasonable. It also greatly clarifies this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I don't want to be overly lawyerly about this, but I do want to remind the members of the committee that the minutes of our meetings are accessible to all concerned across the country. It may be that, as any particular member of the committee might interpret a motion, it means no confidential documents, of course. But others reading it may not interpret it that way. My view is always that if we have a particular intention in mind, we are much better to express it in the motion clearly, so that anyone else reading it will know what was intended.

So although it's fine to pooh-pooh it and say, “Oh, well, it's not necessary to be so specific”, I think it certainly doesn't hurt and it is better for those who read our minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

I still have people who want to speak on this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, it would be my presumption that the committee cannot exceed the law or its jurisdiction or its mandate. It's understood that the minister will provide only those documents that will be required to be provided in law and consistent with the Access to Information Act.

If they want to include that provision, I think it demeans the motion and the minister, but if they so choose, they can put it in.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I will call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're back to the original motion. Are there any comments?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the motion, then, is asking for an analysis of the position, which is that you're now going into a possibility of a confidentiality. Would you please share with the committee, through Marleau & Montpetit, what the guidance is to the committee regarding confidentiality?

Today we've heard members of the opposition asking questions of the minister and the officials and misrepresenting things that were said, even taking a speech made by the Prime Minister a year ago and misrepresenting things that were said.

First of all, it would be inappropriate for an analysis of position to be shared publicly. Second, I'm concerned with the past habits of some, in that whatever is said regarding Bonn may be misrepresented, as we've seen, by some here on the committee. I'm also wondering about motive. Why would they want to find out what the Bonn position was, since it will be in the news already, but not want to hear what's happened at other international conferences? It seems to have a bias and a narrow focus to use something, maybe in a mischievous way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Under Standing Order 108(1)(a), as a committee we can order witnesses to send for papers and records and appropriate documents while we're sitting, and it's up to the witnesses to provide those documents. If we're not happy with the documents that are provided, the committee has the option of calling for more documents or more reports.

Essentially we're asking for a document analysis. We'll see what the minister provides to us. Then, as a committee, we can decide whether that's sufficient. That's Standing Order 108(1).

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, generally speaking, departments have 150 days to respond to requests. Can we have a timeline expressed with this? For example, when the government is requested to provide a response to committee reports, they have 150 days to do so. Is that the case with this specific request?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's the case in the House of Commons when reports are tabled in the House. Government has x number of days to respond to petitions and x number of days to respond to reports from committees, but witnesses appearing at committee are required to submit within a short time span.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

But it has been established by the House that it's entirely reasonable for the response time to such a report to be 150 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McGuinty is next.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm not sure if Mr. Del Mastro is finished, sir.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'm just saying that the House of Commons has established 150 days as a reasonable timeframe for a minister or a department to respond to a request.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's 120 days. Standing Order 109 says it's 120 days for a government response to a committee report, but 45 sitting days for questions from committees on paper or in the House as well. If you table a question in the House, it's 45 days. The standards, then, are from 45 days to 120 days.

Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can we call the vote, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any further comments? I see there are none.

(Motion agreed to)

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, can we do mine?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As with all motions, there's a 36-hour requirement, and it wasn't in to the clerk in time. There may have been technical difficulties because of Tuesday's events; regardless, he didn't receive it with 36 hours of the meeting. It will be on the agenda for the very next meeting.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can I ask if it has been circulated, so that people know about it and can think about it for the next meeting?