ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Á

1100

The Clerk of the Committee

Á

1110

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1115

The Clerk

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Clerk

An hon. member

The Clerk

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Á

1120

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Á

1125

The Clerk

Á

1135

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

The Chair

Á

1140

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Á

1145

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Á

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Á

1155

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

The Clerk

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Â

1200

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see we have a quorum. Our first order of business today is the election of the chair.

    Madam Redman.

Á  (1110)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

    I would like to put forward Charles Caccia as chair of this committee.

    The Clerk: We have a nomination for Mr. Caccia.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) On a point of order, Mr. Clerk, I would like to ask this group to give consent to a secret ballot for both the chair and vice-chairs.

Á  (1115)  

    The Clerk: Is it agreed that we proceed with a secret ballot?

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): On that point, do we have three secret ballots, one for the chair, one for the vice-chair on the government side, and one for the vice-chair on the opposition side?

    The Clerk: If you wish. That is the old way. With the new way, if it should pass, you would have to vote. You could only take nominations for the chair, for instance, from the government side. Then you would proceed to the vice-chairs. If you only have one nomination, there is no secret ballot.

    Do you want to proceed that way? If there is only one nomination, which is the case right now, there's no need for a secret ballot.

    An hon. member: Agreed.

    The Clerk: Mr. Caccia's been nominated.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): On a point or order, Mr. Clerk, our committee used secret ballot when the original committee was organized in the fall of last year. We had a similar problem, that there was only one name put forward for chair. To ensure that the precedent is maintained, we agreed that we would have a secret ballot to affirm the nomination of the chair. If members are agreed on that, we can continue the same way we did in the past.

    The Clerk: If you wish to proceed that way, we'll hand out the ballots.

    So we'll hand out the ballots. There is only one nomination, I presume? Mr. Caccia has been nominated.

    We have counted the ballots, and Mr. Caccia has been elected chair of the committee. I would invite him to take the chair.

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I have a very short speech, if you will allow me, to say thank you for your confidence. I will do my best to deserve it.

    We are now in the business of electing vice-chairs.

    Madam Redman.

Á  (1120)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I was only going to ask that the committee give a direction that the ballots be destroyed.

    The Chair: Will they be destroyed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: It is agreed. Thank you.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): I would like to nominate Bob Mills as vice-chair.

    The Chair: We have received a nomination of Mr. Mills. Are there any other nominations?

    Mr. Savoy.

    Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Mr. John Herron for the position of vice-chair.

    The Chair: Duly noted. This is for the vice-chair on the opposition side, then we will take nominations for the vice-chair for the government side.

    Are there any further nominations?

    We will now distribute the ballots. The name of the member chosen ought to be written out.

    The Clerk: Honourable members, there is no clear majority. We'll pass the ballots out again and do another round. I can't divulge the results, but there is no clear majority, so we'll have to vote again.

    The Chair: What is a clear majority? Is it half plus one?

Á  (1125)  

    The Clerk: There has to be a clear majority of the votes cast.

    Honourable members, the ballots have been counted again and we're in the same situation. There's no clear-cut majority. So we'll do it again.

    The ballots have been counted. We're still at an impasse. We have to do it again. We still have to do this. We do it now or we do it later. Somebody's got to bend. The rules say we just keep voting till we have a clear majority. So we'll pass the ballots again.

    We're at the same place. There's no clear-cut majority. We'll do it again.

    Members, we finally have a majority.

    Mr. Herron has been elected vice-chair of the committee.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: We'll now proceed with a vote for the vice-chair on the government side. Is there a nomination?

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I would like to put forward Karen Kraft Sloan as vice-chair of this committee on the government side.

    The Chair: Thank you. Are there any further nominations? As there are no further nominations, Madam Kraft Sloan is elected by acclamation.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    I would like to suggest that we follow the same procedure as for the election of the chair, which is a secret ballot on the affirmation or non-affirmation of the position. It maintains the precedent of secret ballot and it goes along with what we've been doing this morning.

    The Chair: Very well.

    Madam Kraft Sloan has been confirmed by secret ballot.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras, just a moment please. I have to ask a question. 

[English]

    Congratulations, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Á  (1140)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    The Chair: We all look forward to working with the vice-chairs and to starting our proceedings as soon as possible.

    The chair has to ask a question at this point about the disposition of our business for the balance of this week and subsequent weeks. As you all know, we have received a request by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to appear before this committee, and the workload with Bill C-9 is pretty heavy. We have more than 150 amendments. The proposal that I would like to put to you is the following. We could start with Bill C-9 and the amendments tomorrow and continue on Thursday and the next sitting week also, possibly three times a week. We could start with Bill C-9 perhaps on Thursday, which would have a double advantage. First, it would allow Madam Gélinas to appear before the committee tomorrow, so that we hear her out, and we can start then systematically on Thursday morning and thereafter, so that we can make good progress on Bill C-9.

    Therefore the question is, of the two options I've just described, what is the preference of the committee members?

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I would prefer the alternative of having the commissioner here first. I have some questions I would like to explore with her. Mr. Chair, just to keep you advised of this, some of us are talking about some of the amendments we've put forward where there's duplication or overlap, and there's some discussion that will be going on tomorrow to try to resolve some of those. So it would be an advantage to us, and I think to the work the committee can do, if we had that opportunity tomorrow.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: All right. The chair, then, takes it that there is consensus in having tomorrow Madam Gélinas and that we start Thursday morning on Bill C-9.

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the government is ready to go today. We've been ready for several weeks to go ahead, and we have no objection to hearing from the commissioner on sustainable development. However, this committee's always demonstrated a real willingness to sink its teeth into legislation, CEAA has been around, and I think everybody has given some thoughtful consideration to this over the summer. Could we at this point, because we don't have a steering committee in this committee, get a consensus that we would be willing to sit a little longer when we meet? I know that does create some conflicts for members who sit on other committees as well, but we could put on extra meeting times. As you know, we're getting a late start this fall for our committee rotation, and it's the government's wish that this committee be able, while having a full and thorough discussion of the amendments, to move forward as expeditiously as possible.

    The Chair: Thank you, that's a very good point.

    So I take it, first, that there is a general consensus that we do proceed tomorrow with the commissioner and that we start on Thursday morning with Bill C-9. And on Thursday morning I will enquire with members whether they have had a chance to look at their schedules as to their availability, so that we could have meetings lasting from 9 until 12, rather than from 9 to 11 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, possibly adding a meeting also on Wednesday afternoon from 3:30 until 6. So I will canvas members again on this item.

    Let me now make two points related to this heavy volume you have in your offices.

    There is room for friendly amendments, so as to avoid the fact that an amendment to a given line that precludes then a subsequent amendment to the same line is ruled out. Madam Kraft Sloan, for instance, has certain amendments that would be ruled out, also Mr. Comartin, if I remember correctly, and Monsieur Bigras. In other words, there could be some preliminary work done by members before we start on Thursday, or later on, because some of them are fairly advanced in the book, so that by getting together, they will not lose their amendments because they all happen to hit the same line. You would know exactly which ones I'm referring to, and I don't have to go through the book and give you those numbers, but there are certain instances you could take care of so as to facilitate the work of the committee.

    The second point that needs to be made is this. I've been informed that the legal clerk intends to make the very valid procedural point that where there is an amendment that amends the parent legislation and not the legislation before us, that amendment ought to be ruled out of order. That seems to be hitting some very lengthy amendments, some pretty substantive suggestions. So rather than ruling them out of order a priori--prima facie, as they say in the legal language--I would be rather inclined to hear arguments by the proponents in favour of accepting their amendments, so that we will have, hopefully, brief discussions on the acceptability of that amendment. I'm giving this notice now so that interested members can prepare, possibly, a concise, short, crisp intervention in favour of their amendments, so that we can look at the arguments and make a final decision as to the acceptability of that particular amendment. Is that sufficiently clear?

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I hope that after engaging legal counsel, as this committee has done, we would respect their opinion. So I'm interested in hearing how this process would go. Would the counsel have the opportunity to deem whether or not they felt it was in order or outside the scope of this bill? That's a fundamental way the House committee structure deals with legislation. I'd want that information up front before we went into a long argument as to why it is or is not within the scope of the bill.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: What I propose to do is hear first the counsel's opinion as to the inadmissibility of that amendment. We would then hear the proponent of the amendment, whoever that may be. And we would finally hear the agency's viewpoint. At the completion of that intervention the chair will have to make up his mind and declare it one way or the other.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I find this most curious, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: No, it is not curious, it is perfectly normal as a procedure. The chair, in the end, has to carry that responsibility. But I'm not going to accept a blank ruling-out without having heard everybody concerned. I think this is only fair.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So I can be very clear on this, Mr. Chair, are you now suggesting that we may want to entertain amendments that open clauses other than the clauses that are opened by Bill C-9? We have done this in the past in this committee.

    The Chair: What I just said concerns amendments that may be declared unacceptable from a procedural point of view, that's all.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could I have a little clarification on what you mean by a procedural point of view?

    The Chair: It refers to amendments that, in the view of our legal counsel, are not acceptable, because they amend, as I said earlier, the parent legislation and not the bill before us.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So in other words, we could have a discussion about amendments that open up clauses in the parent statute that are not opened in the amending statute, Bill C-9.

    The Chair: Yes, that's correct.This is the impact of certain amendments, I'm told, and therefore we have to deal with that.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It may also open up the ability to bring amendments forward that we had not brought forward because we had been given other direction.

    Mr. John Herron: There may be amendments that would precipitate the opening of sections of Bill C-9 that are part of this act. Does that mean at that point that section is now opened for amendment?

    The Chair: No, the discussion will be limited to the scope of the amendment proposed by a member, period, nothing more.

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I guess I'd like to follow along the thinking of Ms. Kraft Sloan, as well as Mr. Herron. It seems to me that while this committee largely has worked through consensus, you also have allowed clauses to stand down, so people can think about them. You've also entertained amendments right up until the total clauses have been voted on. I don't know if this is challenging the chair's ruling or at what point we will have to wrestle this to the mat, Mr. Chair, but the scope of Bill C-9 was actually defined at second reading, and I would contend that going ahead in this manner does open up the very issues Ms. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron opened and, by definition, should be ruled out of order, from the government's point of view. If they're not, we would have to challenge that ruling.

    Again, I would question why we have engaged legal opinion in order to ignore it. Doesn't the fact that the bill's passed second reading limit the scope of what the committee can consider, the very construct under which the legal clerk is working?

    The Chair: This is why the chair would invite comment on certain amendments where there is a difference of opinion between the mover and the legal counsel as to admissibility. That also is something that could take place on the floor of the House of Commons. We will have to take that into account. There may be situations when the mover of that particular amendment will recognize that the opinion of counsel is irrefutable, and therefore the motion should not be put forward, having heard everybody.

Á  (1155)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: But Mr. Chair, the second reading was decided in the House. We are a committee of the House, we have our parameters from the entire House of Commons, and so I believe those are the rules under which we should proceed in dealing with these amendments.

    The Chair: Yes, I think, in principle, this is a very sound statement, but there may be times when we do not agree with the counsel, there may be times when we will agree with the counsel, I don't know. We have done it with previous legislation, and it is also done in other committees, I'm told, and I would imagine that it could only produce better results. I thought it was incumbent on me to make it known that this is a possibility, having gone through some of the amendments that are going to be before us.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, for clarification, are we going to proceed with standing clauses down? Are we going to entertain additional amendments as we go through this?

    The Chair: The chair needs consensus of the committee for standing down clauses. I will ask the clerk to repeat what he's whispering in my ear.

    The Clerk: The committee can be seized of amendments at any time through the process, unless, by consent, they say, no, we're closed and we're not having any more amendments. You could be in clause 18 and make an amendment there that will affect other ones and force you to make other amendments. You can't close the process. Is that okay?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I appreciate that. I would just underscore that I believe that is in contravention of the work that was done in second reading, because you are now opening up the--

    The Chair: No, the work done at second reading in the House does not preclude an open, freewheeling discussion of amendments. When there is doubt, of course, we have to clarify and clear the air as to whether or not an amendment is in order. In the end, the members of this committee are responsible for their decision, not the legal counsel.

    Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think you just made my point. When there are amendments that are ruled out of order, it's the will of the committee. The mover could make an intervention challenging the legal counsel and saying, no, I believe it is in order, and then it would be up to the committee to determine if that motion is in order. I believe that's where Mr. Caccia is going, and I fully support that.

    The Chair: Conversely, the members of the committee can challenge the chair, as they have quite successfully in the past.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not quite clear where Ms. Redman's going with her objections, but I would like to indicate to her and the committee that if, in fact, she's going to challenge the chair, she should do it in a formal way and give us the opportunity. The research I've done on this would indicate to me that the position she's suggesting, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, the position you've taken and I think our legal counsel has taken, is not necessarily consistent, if one goes in depth into the historical determinations that have been made and the historical decisions that have been made, both here and in England, on the question of what the limitations are with regard to amendment and what the scope of legislation is. So if Madam Redman is going to, in fact, challenge the chair, I think we deserve, as a committee, the opportunity to respond in full to that challenge before it moves on to the Speaker.

    The Chair: All right, fine. I can only see something positive coming out of these discussions on amendments. There's no need to worry too much about it.

    Are there any further comments on this particular item? If not, then Madam Kraft Sloan wants to raise another item.

  (1200)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wanted to talk with you about the schedule of committee. As I understand it, we'll be meeting on Wednesday and hearing the commissioner. Then on Thursday we have a four-hour session. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: We could have a three-hour session. The clerk will consult to see whether a room is available. Otherwise, it will be 9 to 11.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought there was a possibility of a four-hour session on Thursday.

    The Chair: Three.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Three hours. Then next week Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, sort of thing?

    The Chair: Possibly, yes. I welcome comments by members.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sorry, the break is next week. It would be the following week.

    The Chair: Next week we are not here, but the following one, yes.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine. Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, on another point, when we broke for the summer, we had an indication that we were going to be receiving a report from Mr. Stephen Hazell. I believe we should have that report for our deliberations on the amendments. We may not necessarily deal with it, but I believe it would be well worth the committee's while to have that available to us. I wonder if we could have an update as to what's happened to his report.

    The Chair: Once in July and then in early September the chair went through that report and had conversations with Mr. Hazell. We have been actively involved in strengthening the content of the report and its recommendations. At this stage the report is in its third draft. When that is done, it will be put into the hands of committee members for study, discussion, and consultations, so that we can work on it. I felt it was not ready. The content of the report was not strong enough in its first versions to warrant its circulation. I'm confident that this time it has reached a plateau where it deserves the attention of committee members.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Is he under a time limit as to when he has to get it to us?

    The Chair: No, but I think, because we discussed the second version five or six weeks ago, it should be ready any time now.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to raise some issues with regard to the second report as well. I think, as Mr. Comartin said, it's important for the committee members to have access to the report as we work through the amendments. It will be useful for us to see what's missing from the report, and it's certainly easier to do it as we are working on material and know there are issues that must be addressed. It's easier to make our own comments on the report and know there's a problem there. So I would appreciate having copies of the report made available to committee members as soon as possible.

    The other question I would have, Mr. Chair, has to do with the more technical matter of the submission of the second report. When the committee finishes clause-by-clause and reports to the House on the legislation, Bill C-9, when is it that we must table the second report in the House? Is it at the same time, is it afterwards? Perhaps you can provide some guidance.

    The Chair: It's any time.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So the committee will have an opportunity to complete--

    The Chair: Definitely.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: --clause-by-clause, and then we'll go back to the second report.

    The Chair: This is why it would be helpful if we could conclude the clause-by-clause work, because it will give us a refresher course, so to speak. Then, having been liberated from that burden, we can look at the report in its broader scope.

    The clerk has carefully prepared on the back of each sheet that has just been distributed the motion as adopted a year ago, so that it is not blank, but is filled out. The question is whether members of the committee can accept the decisions of a year ago, as spelled out in the sheet, or whether they would prefer that we go through them laboriously one by one.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I would move that we adopt the motions as presented to us.

    The Chair: Taken as circulated?

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes.

    The Chair: We have a motion. Is there any discussion or questions?

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Are we assuming, then, that we will go with the 24 hours notice? You're moving all the ones on the back, so we just fill in “24 hours” for that blank?

    The Chair: Yes, 24.

    Are you happy with the 24 hour scheme? Can we go for Mr. Lunn's motion?

    Mr. John Herron: Does that mean that if we have an evening session on a Wednesday and someone puts in a motion, on Thursday in the morning we would have a vote?

    Mr. Gary Lunn: It's an unusual experience for us. When you have an evening session like that and you hand in a motion, in most cases, the clerk has accepted that as 24 hours.

    Mr. John Herron: So the next morning we can vote on it. Okay.

    The Chair: Fine, that is clarified.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Thank you for your cooperation, and we'll see you again tomorrow.

    Meeting adjourned.