Environment Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, as I recall, the government members themselves raised this at the beginning of the meeting. What I'm saying is there is no common sense to discussing amendments to legislation that deals with enforcement unless we are also simultaneously dealing with the enforcement and compliance strategy.

I'm not raising new business, I'm speaking to one of the many items that they're suggesting are going to come before us into the future. I'm simply trying to give fair advance notice to the department that when they bring forward those amendments we would also like to hear from them on the enforcement compliance policy.

So I don't understand why I would withdraw the motion. We can vote against the motion, but I don't see it as any different from any other motion brought before the committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I move deferral until this be discussed under other business, and deferral is non-debatable.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you like to discuss it under other business?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's fine, so long as it is discussed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we'll deal with it at the end of the meeting. Thank you for your cooperation.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm sorry to have opened a can of worms under point three under estimates, but that's why I opened it up, because it's very important to know each one of these, as Monsieur Bigras has pointed out.

I don't know whether we can take to the bank what we've just heard about the government's agenda. If the government's legislative agenda is the single item called environmental enforcement, okay. Then we had better design our pathway in a more elaborate way to deal with these subjects. For example, I would expect the minister would be appearing. That's why I originally opened this. Whether the minister comes for two hours for the main estimates, if he doesn't come for supplementary estimates C, I thought it had a bearing if he showed up for this environmental enforcement legislation on how often and how long he would come for estimates. That's why I asked the question.

But now I'm hearing, Mr. Chair, that the government has a solitary item in its legislative agenda for this Parliament and I haven't heard anything on water, on climate change, on energy, or biodiversity. Yes, there's a mandatory SARA review. That's not legislative. New legislation is a mandated review for this committee, and we're six months over time now for that. I understand that. But each one of these areas, the estimates we're still on here, point three.... Now that we know the government is bringing forward only one proposed piece of legislation, I think we should spend more time on the estimates.

My view is that if the minister can come for two hours, great, but I just don't think we're doing justice to a $1.1 billion total departmental spending for the Department of the Environment in a two-hour meeting. I go back to an argument I made in this committee several weeks ago about the fact that I think the estimates process is not being properly treated in this committee. I learned from our normal chair that up until 1955 the process of estimates was conducted in the full House of Commons in committee of the whole.

I think we ought to examine the possibility on point three, estimates, to have more than a single meeting to deal with a $1.1 billion budget. So that's why I want to come back to.... Now having heard there is no other legislative agenda, which surprised me, because it was the government's own proposed motion when we were setting up the rules for this committee.... They said they wanted to make sure that government legislation would supersede other work of the committee, so I assumed there would be a volume of legislative changes coming forward, but now we learn there's not.

So I don't know how far we can go as a committee in terms of planning things if we find in a month that the government's changed its mind, which it has the right to do, and other legislation is coming forward. If we're going to roll out on this agenda, I would suggest we spend more time on the estimates. The water and oil sands study in itself, as Monsieur Bigras has rightly pointed out....

If we don't know how many hours, meetings or days we will spend on this study, how can we call witnesses, plan a trip or do what the government might suggest? That would be very difficult. If we take for granted that the government is only interested in a bill on environmental enforcement, we can go ahead with that. But I think that we should focus on the main estimates. I suggest that we let the subcommittee decide and present the main committee with a work schedule. So the issue is how many weeks we will spend studying water and the oil sands, and how many meetings do we want to spend reviewing the main estimates.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I understood correctly, Mr. McGuinty, you are suggesting that we spend two whole meetings studying the main estimates.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But we would be spending two hours with the minister.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We would not invite him twice.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I agree with Mr. McGuinty's suggestion, all the more because it might address the concerns of Ms. Duncan regarding the application of standards and the legislation.

In my opinion, in light of the budget, this would allow Ms. Duncan, as an elected representative, to ask her questions before the government tables its bill or its amendments. That way, we could debate the budget, which is huge and which certainly merits closer scrutiny.

I would even be willing to present a motion whereby we would spend two meetings on the main estimates. That would give us a good indication. We don't have any hidden intentions. We are putting everything on the table. We want to discuss the matter, but we also need to know which direction the government is headed in. In my view, we should spent two meetings on the main estimates and then we could spend two hours with the minister.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We could also take advantage of the occasion by asking Ms. Duncan's question regarding government policy...

Mr. Bigras, you have presented a motion...

Yes, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can I speak to that motion?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would concur with that motion. I would hope that we have at least a full meeting with the officials in addition to a full meeting with the minister. That's a hefty agenda to try to deal with in one meeting. I found the time in our last session with the officials far too short, and for the main budget there's a lot to cover.

I am not a minimal. I will not be able to raise all of my questions about enforcement compliance on the budget because I will not have tabled the strategy yet. However, I do concur that it would be useful to have, in advance of the meeting with the administering officials on the main estimates, an idea of what the coming agenda is for the government.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just so that I can better understand where we're at, Mr. Bigras has a motion that we have four hours on the main estimates—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I did not officially propose a motion, but the process has begun. Unless the clerk is mistaken, I did not formally make a motion. We would first like to know what the government thinks of it.

Will the government be open to spending two meetings on the main estimates? The parliamentary secretary has not said anything about this so far.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Monsieur Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure now whether we have a motion on the floor. I'm going to accept Mr. Bigras' comment that we do not have a motion on the floor. I'd like to suggest that a motion to try to define in advance how many meetings we're going to have on any particular subject would probably not be a prudent course anyway. The ebb and flow of our questioning and answering will determine, I suppose, on a day-to-day basis, how long we're going to spend and if we want to spend more time on an issue, rather than trying to predetermine in advance that we're going to take two meetings, no more and no less.

Apart from that, though, one of the gaps I find about this conversation is that, as a new member, I'm a bit at sea as to the timeframe over which we are attempting to plan. In my experience in the three short months I've been on the Hill, things change daily. So I'm wondering: are we planning from now until Christmas, from now until June, or from now until 2012?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Essentially, I would think to start from now until June. However, getting back to the comments I made at the beginning of the meeting, we're not necessarily trying to cross all the t's and dot all the i's today. We're trying to give direction to the steering committee. It seems clear to me at this point, without a motion but just following the discussion, that we would like to have two meetings on the estimates, with the minister coming for two hours if possible.

That seems to be the general consensus. It will be up to the steering committee to work out the details, the dates, and so on and so forth. However, that's my general understanding.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If the consensus isn't unanimous, that may be the case, but I myself don't share the notion that we have to have two meetings on the estimates.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your point is taken.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Are we on the agenda now?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, Mr. Jean.