Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session)
Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 26th, 2007
Evidence of meeting #20 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)
Laurie Hawn
Bernard Bigras
David McGuinty
Mark Warawa
Brian Jean
John Godfrey
Marcel Lussier
John Moffet Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Michel Ares Counsel, Department of Justice Canada
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Bonjour, tout le monde, and welcome to meeting 20 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C- 30. Thank you all for coming.
We have a lot of work ahead of us in the next few days, so we'll try to waste as little time as possible. However, don't gobble your food, because it's bad for your digestion. We're pleased to be able to feed you so well.
Welcome to the folks from the department.
The first thing we will do is table the third report from the subcommittee, which we held on Friday. It details the schedule that we've laid out for this week.
Starting today, with some breaks for voting and so on, we will meet from 5:30 to 9:30. And we'll come back to that. Tomorrow we'll meet from 9 to 11 and from 3:30 to 5:30. Now, the end times with all of these are flexible, so if we're on a roll and we keep rolling, that's good. On Wednesday we'll meet from 12 noon until 2 p.m.—there'll be lunch—and from 3:30 to 9:30. And on Thursday, March 29, we'll meet from 9 to 11 and, if necessary, from 11 to 1 o'clock. We have to report back to the House at noon on Friday, so if possible, we would like not to keep our staff up all night doing the report.
Mr. Bigras, apparently there is something happening in Quebec this evening. I've received a request from the Bloc that we adjourn at 9 p.m., if committee members have no objections.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
We had planned to sit until 9:30 p.m. I don't know if it's possible to finish up 30 minutes earlier. In any case, I think we'll all be very tired by 9 p.m. Could the committee possibly give its consent? That way, we'd be able to tune in to the results of the Quebec elections.
Mr. Cullen, let's not take too long debating this.
I think we all might have a heightened interest in what happens in Quebec this evening. In the interest of cooperation, sure, we'll see what happens.
Does anybody have a problem with that? Okay, we'll plan to knock off tonight at 9 o'clock.
I'd like to move that the third report be concurred in. Perhaps somebody could move that. It's moved by Mr. Godfrey. Perhaps somebody could second that. Mr. Cullen.
(Motion agreed to)
Okay, we're good to go.
We're now at the stage where we can get started. I'd like to take a minute to ensure that everybody has the documents they need.
You should have an amendments binder. You should have the package of 34 Liberal amendments, starting with amendment L-1. This whole package was distributed last Tuesday. You should have received amendment NDP-15.3 that was distributed last Tuesday. There's an additional package of six Liberal amendments, starting with amendment L-2.1, which was distributed last Friday.
Earlier today the clerk received two new NDP amendments, amendments NDP-12.1 and NDP-38, which have just been distributed.
And there is the agenda for today's meeting, which has been updated to show all amendments received to date and all decisions taken to date.
The clerk has extra copies of all of those things, if you discover as we go along that you don't have what you need.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Mr. Cullen.
As we've discovered, many of the implications of certain amendments have effect further on, so I have a comment on process as we go through, that within reason—and I think that's important—there be given some time for members to confer on implications, particularly if something new or a friendly amendment comes forward. Sometimes we'll need a little time to huddle and make sure we're voting for the thing we want to vote for.
Absolutely. The analysts and the legislative clerks and so on have done a good job of giving me a cheat sheet, so we'll be able to guide that—
You might want to share that, Mr. Chair. You wouldn't want to share that cheat sheet, would you?
No, because then I wouldn't look smarter than you, which I'm not.
We wouldn't want that.
Anyway, we're going to be methodical about this. Because there are a lot of interrelationships between clauses, we're going to make sure we're not dealing with something that's affected by something else down the road. We will be methodical and we'll make sure everybody has the information they need.
The first one we are going to hear is the new Liberal amendment, L-2.1 that's been distributed but not yet moved. Before we do that, I want to share something with you.
Part 1 of Bill C-30 deals with amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This amendment proposes a new clause outside of CEPA, proposing a series of public hearings to ascertain the views of Canadians on the appointment process for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
Bill C-30 was referred to committee before second reading, which means that there is more latitude in the amending process. The requirement that amendments must fall within the scope of the bill does not apply to bills referred before second reading. However, other rules of admissibility continue to apply. Every amendment, for example, must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and this rule is expressed on page 654 of Marleau-Montpetit.
It's not clear to me how this amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill before us. I just say that before we kick off. I would appreciate the honourable member addressing this point during his remarks on the amendment, and then I'll hear from other members on this before giving a decision on the admissibility of the amendment.
With that short preamble, I will turn it over to, I'm assuming, Mr. McGuinty to propose amendment L-2.1.
March 26th, 2007 / 5:40 p.m.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your patience with this amendment L-2.1.
It replaces amendment L-2, which did have financial and expenditure implications for the government, and we heard in your ruling, which we thank you for, in the last meeting that royal recommendation does not attach to this bill in its present form. Therefore we replaced amendment L-2 with L-2.1 because it explicitly avoids new expenditures.
I'm interested to hear the question that you put to the table right now, Mr. Chair, with respect to the relevancy of this amendment, and I'd like to speak to that pretty directly in very short order to explain why this is so incredibly important for the future of the country as we seek to both, using the government's language, clean up our air and reduce our greenhouse gases.
This is not a strange matter to almost every member of this committee, Mr. Chair. We have been seized with this in the environment committee, for those of us who sit there, and this is an issue that's been debated quite openly. The amendment has inspired itself in terms of the role and purpose of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, using standard agent of Parliament language—for example, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Ethics Commissioner—and you see that in proposed section 72.15, as written in the amendment.
We have, however, added a few additional features when we speak about the purpose of the commissioner being to monitor and report on the state and integrity of the environment of Canada under proposed section 72.15. It states:
to monitor and report on the progress of federal institutions towards sustainable development through the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, including
And you will see, of course, proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g). Two new ones are (h) and (i), which speak explicitly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the country and also speak explicitly to the avoidance of climate change—something that I believe is inherent, if not explicit, in Bill C-30 as it is presently drafted. It's not only related to Bill C-30, Mr. Chair, but it's also desperately needed if we're going to enhance the environmental accountability in Canada for this and any subsequent government that might be forthcoming.
There are also some other standard agent of Parliament powers, starting in proposed section 72.19, that again flow from offices like that of the Ethics Commissioner. However, in proposed section 72.20—again very much, I believe, on point with Bill C-30 and its purpose—proposed paragraph 72.20(2)(a) is new, and it asks the commissioner to report on the sustainable development obligations of any federal institution that has not yet complied, not having been in compliance "in a timely and effective manner". Again, that was inspired from the essential purpose of Bill C-30.
Finally, under proposed section 72.21, Mr. Chair, which is all new, it speaks very explicitly to air quality and greenhouse gas reduction issues, again as stated in the central purpose of Bill C-30, which is to strengthen Canada's regulatory, institutional, and legal framework to deal with both clean air and greenhouse gas reduction.
It calls, for example, on the commissioner, starting in 2013 and every two years after that until 2051, to prepare a report that includes—it's important I think to single them out, Mr. Chair, for a second:
(a) an analysis of Canada's progress in implementing the Climate Change Plans;
(b) an analysis of Canada's progress in meeting its international commitments and obligations with respect to climate change and greenhouse gases;
That might be international commitments that we presently hold and international commitments that could be negotiated and entered into in the future.
Finally, proposed paragraph 72.21(1)(d) calls for:
an analysis of the progress of the Minister of the Environment in establishing a reliable methodology for estimating and auditing annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for Canada as a whole and for each economic sector and large industrial emitter;
This speaks to some of the challenges we heard from our witnesses, Mr. Chair, about the need for Canada to get a robust set of data on greenhouse gases on a national basis, on a sector basis, and for that matter, even from a large industrial emitter basis.
I believe this would not only be a positive contribution to the strengthening of environmental accountability in Canada, but it would also, I think, greatly supplement the objectives of Bill C-30 that the government has put forward in intent and in words as Bill C-30 is presently drafted.
Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair, as I present this amendment and formally move it.
We'll have a little bit of discussion on that. Mr. Cullen is first.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be curious to have an elaboration from you or from the clerk's table as to why this may be inadmissible, or you rule it as such.
The purpose of creating this committee, when we suggested it back in November, was for this very purpose. This is a bit of a convergence of two interests. This issue of an independent environment commissioner came forward as a result of Madame Gélinas' leaving the office prior to Christmas. In the environment committee, we looked in some detail at whether she needed to be independent.
The place to make that change was unknown to us as committee members. Members of Parliament from all parties have expressed interest in this idea of at least considering it and looking at the implications, because what happened this past year in terms of accountability for this country when it came to the environment was distressing to many of us.
We had a champion for the environment in Madame Gélinas, and then, like that, she was gone and replaced by somebody else of, I'm sure, excellent quality, but someone unknown to us and unknown certainly in the field of the environment.
This opportunity that we created through Bill C-30, and that all the parties agreed to, was the exchange of ideas. This seems like an idea that has merit. I remember when Mr. McGuinty moved this concept at the environment committee; we suggested he bring it here, to this table, where we can effect a bill.
The heart of the work that Madame Gélinas and others before her have done is around the accountability of Canada's actions and decisions when it comes to legislation with the environment. How is it that the Canadian people are able to know that what the government claims is going on has actually happened? We can all fondly remember—at least those of us in opposition at the time—the environment commissioner's reports on the government's actions, because she pointed out things.
Mr. Watson will remember that the previous government's commitment of $5 billion to fight climate change, which Canadians would say is important, had actually resulted in a little over $1 billion being spent. This current government is now making announcements, but in such a heightened political atmosphere, who are we to trust, and how can we trust that the thing will actually happen?
Over the last 14 years, Canadians can be forgiven for being a bit skeptical of government announcements. The Commissioner of the Environment's place was verifiable.
The last think I would like to say is this. Committee members who are also on the environment committee will remember that Ms. Fraser had some reservations about this concept.
We also spoke to other countries that have invoked a very different type of environment commissioner, one who is able to do a bit more of the casting forward as well as the pure, traditional auditing practices. This is a change in audit practice for Canada when it comes to the commissioner's role; it subtly alters what it is she's doing.
I think some in the Auditor General's office have concerns with that, because they are just accustomed to a different system, but when you talk to New Zealand in particular, and some European nations, this is absolutely standard practice, and it has been to great effect for MPs, both those within government and those sitting on opposition benches.
So there's a switch, a positive change. We're glad the Liberal members took up both the NDP suggestion of moving it here to Bill C-30 and the concept of moving good ideas through the Bill C-30 process to improve that accountability loop.
All of these amendments we're seeking to do, I would suggest to all those sitting around the table, aren't worth much if we don't have the confidence that they will actually happen. A big problem with environmental legislation and environmental policy in this country is that the thing just hasn't happened. The promises have been made; laws like CEPA were drafted, but we heard from witness after witness that it's the actual carrying out: it's the will of the civil service, it's the will of the politicians to actually follow through to the letter of the law. That's what's been lacking in Canada, and desperately so. It's not announcements and not grandiose statements about the environment; it's actually doing the thing.
We think this amendment, in this process, could be quite advantageous because it will ensure some accountability, but it will also put the fear into those carrying out the legislation that someone will be looking at the policies and analyzing how they match up to Canada's commitments. No one will craft a policy that the Commissioner of the Environment will walk out three months later and totally debunk. That just wouldn't be intelligent politics.
For those reasons, and as I said at the very beginning, I am curious about the ruling as to why this remains out of order. It's of some curiosity for some other amendments we're moving later on.
Monsieur Bigras.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My comments about this amendment will be even briefer than my colleagues because I'm not sure that at the rate we're going, we'll manage to get through the entire amendment binder.
First of all, we have to remember the discussions that have taken place thus far about the position of Commissioner of the Environment. Obviously, we've had discussions, but not within the framework of our study of Bill C-30. I mention C-30, because I wouldn't want us to bring into the mix the debates that took place in the confines of the environment and sustainable development committee. I want you to recall the debates that took place in the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. There is not one single member here in this committee who raised at any time the issue of the independence of the Commissioner of the Environment. Yes, the environment committee did hold some discussions following the unfortunate events that unfolded.
We were among those who called for more independence for the Commissioner of the Environment. We believed that the Commissioner should be as independent as possible. The question I have today is this: is Bill C-30 the best vehicle for initiating a discussion on the future powers of a Commissioner of the Environment? I have my doubts about that. Of course, a private member's bill could always be introduced to endow the Commissioner of the Environment with additional powers and we could call in all of the stakeholders who were consulted to discuss the matter. That wouldn't be a problem. We could discuss it and more than likely, I would vote in favour of the amendment. The issue I have today is that we're attempting to use Bill C-30 to modify the duties of the Commissioner of the Environment whereas this is not the place to do that. Moreover, we're certainly going to discuss this matter in the future. Clearly, the Parliament of Canada Act needs to be amended, but Bill C-30 is not the way to accomplish that.
This amendment, which I would qualify as a run-on amendment, is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat, when in fact we haven't yet discussed this matter, debated it in a parliamentary committee or heard from witnesses.
In that respect, Mr. Chairman, I respect your assessment of amendment L-2.1.
Merci, monsieur Bigras.
I'll just point out that I have not made a ruling yet, but I will after I hear from Mr. Warawa, if that's okay.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the comments made around the table. I tend to lean in the direction of the comments made by Mr. Bigras. The Office of the Commissioner of the Environment is a very important office to keep the government accountable on environmental issues. At present the commissioner is under the Office of the Auditor General. We at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development dealt with a motion of how we should be dealing with that office—should that office of the commissioner be separate from the Auditor General? That is the direction that the committee is recommending.
For us to be dealing with that office in Bill C-30, I believe, will slow down Bill C-30. We need to move forward on Bill C-30. I don't believe it's the best place. I believe it should be dealt with separately from Bill C-30. I think it will be dealt with in an efficient and effective way. We're not opposed to considering a separate independent Office of the Commissioner of the Environment, but we are opposed to slowing down the processing in clause-by-clause of Bill C-30. I would hope that it would be considered not relevant and necessary to Bill C-30.
I have listened and I agree, I think, that the environment commissioner is probably a good idea. I agree, frankly, with Monsieur Bigras and Mr. Warawa that we're here to rewrite Bill C-30; we're not here to use the process with this committee to modify other processes. I agree that it will slow down considerably what we're doing here with respect to modifying Bill C-30, with respect to taking something back to the House on Friday to say, here's the bill.
As to what oversight there is in the bill, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is probably a good idea, and I think that will probably happen, but I don't think it's relevant to actually rewriting Bill C-30. For that reason, my ruling on this is that it would be out of order due to lack of relevance to Bill C-30 specifically.
I stand to be challenged or disagreed with, and as always, I never take it personally.
Shall we move on? Thank you for your understanding.
(On clause 2)
Clauses 2 and 3 propose changes to the preamble and interpretation provisions of CEPA, and these changes are borne out in substantive clauses later in part 1 of the bill. I would suggest standing clauses 2 and 3 until the committee has decided on the substance of part 1. If we decide stuff in clauses 2 and 3, it may be undoing things we do later on.
Is there agreement to do so? I think everybody has thought about this a little bit beforehand.
(Clauses 2 and 3 allowed to stand)
In clause 4, there's an amendment from the NDP, NDP-10, which is on page 15 of your binder. I'll point out that amendment NDP-10 is consequential to NDP-20, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Cullen to see if he has a suggestion in that regard.
Thank you, Chair.
You're right, I think this is going to be one of the many consequential amendments that we'll be moving as we go through this. We'd like to stand this until we get through NDP-20 and then bring us back to consideration of this. It hinges upon that.
(Clause 4 allowed to stand)
Okay, thank you for that.
The next item is a new proposed section, 4.1, which is addressed by amendment BQ-4 on page 16, so would you all turn your hymn books to that page.
Maybe it's a point of clarification with this, and this is probably more of how these things function under law, so I don't know if this is necessarily for Mr. Bigras or the chair.
On the creation of these independent bodies, is there more explicitness needed in an amendment to an act to create such an independent body? With "this Act", is "this Act" Bill C-30 in and of itself enough, or is an amendment to the CEPA or some other parliamentary act necessary to make that happen? Is this enough? I'm very curious about the idea, but I'm still not totally understanding the mechanism.