ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

¿

0910

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

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

¿

0915

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

¿

0920

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

¿

0930

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

¿

0940

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 081

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs.

    We have two motions, one fairly easy, the other one perhaps not. We will start with the easy motion. Since the turnout this morning is so impressive, I will provide some background for the first motion very quickly.

    Members of the committee may recall the appearance in March by Stephen Hazell, who made quite a substantive contribution, being an authority in the field of environmental assessment. At that time, because of what he and Martha Kostuch, who was another witness, said, we asked him whether he would prepare an outline for a possible report of this committee to the House that would proceed in parallel with and at a different speed from Bill C-19. Mr. Hazell came back in late May and distributed and discussed with us a short outline of what he's proposing, entitled “Beyond Bill C-19: Toward a New Vision for Environmental Assessment”. In that summary he outlined the components of the study he would do for the committee. We briefly discussed this item last week, but we didn't have the necessary quorum to make a decision.

    In the meantime our researchers have met with Mr. Hazell, and in a memorandum, Kristen Douglas informs me that after the committee has approved the contract, our two researchers would meet with Stephen Hazell and develop the basis for cooperation whereby Mr. Hazell would outline the report and its content and the two researchers would provide the research necessary, quoting from witnesses who have appeared before the committee, so as to give it the substance that is needed for what promises to be a very useful study for this committee, for our colleagues in the House, for the government, and for the agency, of course, because it is intended to cover the long term.

    This is briefly the story behind this. The motion as phrased before you is one that does not require a special budgetary allocation, because it is below the cost of $10,000, I'm told, and so within the budget of the committee. I would like to open a brief discussion on this item, so we can dispose of this motion first.

    Madam Redman.

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

    For the benefit of people watching at home and some members who weren't here at our last meeting, I think the title of Mr. Hazell's last paper, “Beyond Bill C-19”, is the point I'd like to underscore. We're looking at things to do with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that are outside the scope of this five-year review.

    The government acknowledged the first anniversary of Bill C-19's having been before this committee. So if we see this process as something that deals substantively with a lot of the issues that come up during Bill C-19 and very effectively reviews what was carried out by the agency on behalf of the government, without affecting the eventual outcome or the timeline of how we deal, hopefully, expeditiously with Bill C-19, then I think it is well worth having the discussion. But I would also seek clarification as to what this committee intends to do and how it would see this process unfolding once we have received Mr. Hazell's report, with the support of the researchers. What would we see happening to the information in this report?

    The Chair: It is up to the committee to see its way on how to handle this, but as with other reports, when it is received, it will be studied, and then it will be accommodated in a manner that will not interfere with the orderly study of Bill C-19. As I said earlier, the speed of the report would be quite different from the speed of Bill C-19, and so it would have its own momentum and probably reach the House at a later date than the bill.

    Madam Kraft Sloan, then Mr. Reed and Mr. Bailey.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate what you have said. I think the work by Mr. Hazell and the researchers will provide a very useful foundation for the committee to begin its deliberations on a second report. The first report would be on Bill C-19 going back to the House, and the second report would be the work Mr. Hazell would do. Because Mr. Hazell and the researchers will be working on this prior to our resuming sitting in the fall and it will be a parallel process, I don't think it will take an extra, unnecessary amount of time from the committee work. Given the fact that Bill C-19 has, in very limited ways, addressed the issues that have come before us, I think it's important that we have the opportunity, as a committee, to speak about problems regarding environmental assessment.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): I just have a quick question. Is there any way of putting a timeline on the receipt of that report, so that members could have it for study before the committee resumes in the fall?

    The Chair: That is an interesting idea. We could certainly indicate that there is a desire to receive it before a certain date, without forcing Mr. Hazell to produce at all costs before that date. It would certainly be an interesting instrument for the committee to have for the long term.

    Mr. Bailey and Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I don't want to be repetitive, but it would seem to me that if we had that report as we go through the amendments on Bill C-19, each one on the committee would have a great deal more background and basis for his or her judgment on whether to approve a motion or delete it. It is incumbent upon us in this committee to take a look at this. These are very important amendments. We have that report beforehand or with us, so we could read it as we go through these amendments. A second point is that if such is the case, those people who have moved these amendments would be completely in touch with the process itself. I'd really like to hear from Mr. Hazell and I'd really like to see his comments.

    The Chair: Mr. Bailey, keep in mind that Mr. Hazell's study will be for the long term and will be beyond the scope of Bill C-19. He has made his representation, he has commented on the bill. That is on record for the committee members to study and to keep in mind, but as he indicated in his paper, his intent would be to cover the field and to provide advice for a bill after Bill C-19--beyond Bill C-19. So committee members will not labour under the impression that Mr. Hazell's work will guide the committee on Bill C-19, these are two items that have different coverage. Bill C-19 has been covered in his presentation, and that's fine. The study would cover the long term and, as the title of the study says, it is beyond Bill C-19. Let's not now create unnecessary illusions here.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Bailey has raised an interesting point. When we come to the amendment of Bill C-19 and thinking about the long-term implications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if there are things that have been noted in Mr. Hazell's report that suggest improvements to Bill C-19, I think that possibility exists. However, the chair is correct that it will be beyond Bill C-19.

    I also wanted to point out for members that there will be new membership when we resume sitting in the fall, and while I understand Mr. Reed's position on having a timeline, I think the report should be essentially completed by the time members come back, when they're ready to engage and focus on this particular topic.

    Also, I should underscore for members, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Hazell's report will not be the final report of the committee, because the committee will have an opportunity to go through that report.

    The Chair: The clerk just whispered to me that Mr. Hazell has indicated his willingness to have a draft of the report ready by the fall.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine.

    The Chair: Could we entertain a motion, then, from Mr. Reed? Could you read the motion?

    Mr. Julian Reed: That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development retain the services of Stephen Hazell to write a report outlining a new vision for environmental assessment.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Is there a seconder? Mr. Reynolds. Thank you.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we come to Mr. Comartin's motion. Mr. Comartin, you have the floor.

¿  (0920)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    The motion is as printed.

    The Chair: Thank you for the promotion, but we are not there.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It would be a well deserved one, Mr. Chair, but don't tell the Speaker that.

    Mr. Chair, the motion is as printed in the agenda that's been circulated. It is to put off the review of the bill clause by clause until we return in the fall. As everybody is aware, we are going to be rising no later than Friday this week. We have before us in Bill C-19 a fairly technical bill, and we're up to 191 amendments proposed, some of which I think represent duplication, but almost all of them are, from my review of them, separate amendments we will have to deal with. That means there is no way we're going to get through these today or, assuming the House continues to sit, on Thursday. We will not come anywhere near completing. In fact, I assume we'll get no further than ithe initial few proposed amendments. So when we come back in the fall, we will have covered maybe 10 to 20 of these, and we'll have to start again. Because it is such a technical bill, I think it's going to require us to go back and review the amendments we've dealt with already, so that there would be a requirement for repetitive effort on the part of the whole committee.

    The additional point Ms. Kraft Sloan just made is the likelihood that in the fall there will be new membership on this committee, at least that's the impression we have from the government side, so that those individuals will not have had the opportunity to partake in whatever we've done up to that point.

    In addition, I have, and I believe this is the case with a couple of other members, amendments I'm still working on and won't complete this week, at the rate we're going. I also expect—and this was the experience we had with Bill C-5—there will be additional amendments coming out of the debate that will occur around the initial phase of the amendments to the bill, and with whatever we did today and Thursday, assuming we were to proceed, it would be just about impossible. Again, it would require a complete review of the work we've done in this day and a half.

¿  (0925)  

    With regard to the process, obviously, we have to be concerned, since all the rumours are flying, with the likelihood that this session is going to be prorogued at some point and we may come back for a day or two or a week or two in September and be faced with this bill going down with all the others, since it will still be on the Order Paper and it's unrealistic to expect we'll get it through. However, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared—and I have authority to do this—to undertake to this committee that if that happens, whatever stage the bill has reached by that point, we will consent to its being brought back to the same stage, so that we will not waste any time. I'm also prepared to acknowledge that our party will do whatever is possible to deal with the bill in a speedy fashion at that time.

    The only other point I would make, Mr. Chair, is that if this motion goes through and we stop the clause-by-clause as of now, I would, through you, be asking the committee to consider a briefing on the Earth Summit Rio Plus 10 for Thursday morning. I think we've all heard expressions of concern about what is happening with that conference, and it would certainly be helpful for us to be made aware of the situation, so we can plan whether we're going to attend or not, whether we're going to continue to press the minister for assistance in attending, or whatever other methods we may look to. I believe we could benefit, as a committee, from a briefing at this time.

    Those are all my submissions. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    We have now Mr. Reed, Mr. Bailey, Madam Redman.

    Before giving the floor to Mr. Reed, let me welcome to the committee--something I should have done at the very beginning--John Reynolds, former Minister of the Environment in British Columbia, and Monsieur Serge Cardin. We're very glad to have you with us today.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In spite of the ebb and flow of my emotions regarding this committee, I should go on record as saying I have no knowledge, either directly or indirectly, that the membership on the government side is scheduled to be changed in any way. It may very well be, but there's nothing that's come across my desk to indicate that.

    With Mr. Comartin's commitment to a speedy examination of these amendments, I'd like to know his definition of speedy in this place. However, I do have sympathy with Mr. Comartin's motion. We would be far better to start the mental train and make it consistent in one go, rather than beginning it now, doing a few amendments, and then walking away from the thing for the summer. I would support Mr. Comartin.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, in my former life I learned there were certain things you don't do when you're coming near the end of a session, and we are indeed coming near the end of a session. And if you're going to start a new session, I believe you should start with the review. We could have new members, we could very well have an adjournment, a short break for the summer, then a prorogation. I'm only putting in my two cents worth, but I believe it would be very wrong for us, in these few hours remaining, to get into these clauses. I don't think you'd get by very many, and I think it would be very wrong to do that. This deserves more attention than that, and I would like to check the recall availability of each person. I've got an idea that when we come back and get at this, even in late September, we'll be going back over them anyway. So I would certainly agree with Mr. Comartin's motion and would be supporting it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Redman and Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I find this a very interesting development, and I need to go on record as saying it is wonderful to see all these bright, shining faces across from us. I recall that even last week Monsieur Bigras felt compelled to leave because we were still having global discussions about something that's been before this committee for well over a year.

    I would like to thank Ms. Smith, Mr. Connelly, and Mr. Mongrain for being here. The government is more than able to discuss the amendments. We're happy to go this week. We were happy to go last week. And I'd point out, Mr. Chairman, that this committee does, in its finest moments, work quite well, but there is an inherent problem when we continue to accept new amendments. I would ask this committee to consider at what point in this process we are going to draw a line in the sand. I've been on other committees, before my experience on environment, where, with all-committee consent, any amendment can be brought forward that, if it comes out of the substance of clause-by-clause discussion and has the support of the group, could bring something back for discussion. But when we are as fluid and as uncertain on when amendments come in--this morning I believe 40 were tabled--it does make it very difficult to have a thoughtful discussion. That too will continue in September, October, November, or whenever this committee decides it is going to get to the point where we're actually voting on amendments and we're actually closing clauses. I find that an inherent flaw in this system.

    I'd also like to point out that the--

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting. You don't need to blame the system, you can blame the chair. It could be said the chair is weak and inefficient, or it could be said the chair is democratic and wise. It depends. We have learned from Bill C-5, Bill C-32, and so on that if you keep the system fluid, you get a better result at the end. I can understand your frustration, but we're better to err on the side of flexibility than on the side of rigidity. I'll leave it at that.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Well, that's another point of view, Mr. Chair, and I would acknowledge that you have every right to hold that view.

    I would also point out that with Mr. Comartin's request of having officials here to talk about Johannesburg, which I assume is the next meeting he refers to, we'd be more than happy to submit something in writing. Of course, this committee is free to make a request. I honestly can't say at this time whether officials would be in a position to come on two days notice to give that kind of report.

    The government is more than prepared to go forward today and Thursday to deal with the substantive issues for this very long process. I would also agree with my colleague Mr. Reed that as far as we know, from the government's position, there is not going to be a wholesale change. This process has been long and very consultative, and I would hate to think that in September, with the change of a few players, we might start back at square one again.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Kraft Sloan, then Monsieur Bigras.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary isn't aware of the workload of the committee, because I keep hearing reiterated the notion that this legislation has been before this committee for over a year. Maybe it's true that Bill C-19 was referred to committee on June 4, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary has forgotten that we were engaged in clause-by-clause on Bill C-5 until December 3, 2001. I don't know of many committees that can do studies and clause-by-clause on one bill and hear witnesses on another, particularly with bills of such great importance to the Canadian public.

    The other point I would like to add, Mr. Chair, is that when I examine the resources in my office, I have one legislative assistant, and poor Tom Balint has been working day and night on Bill C-5. Indeed, we've been working day and night on Bill C-5 from February, because the government introduced motions to claw back the very hard work of this committee, and as a result, we had to continue working on Bill C-5 until Tuesday of last week. So my legislative assistant and I have been extremely busy working on Bill C-5, Mr. Chair, improving that particular bill.

    If I take a look at what the department has to offer, at last count, I would suggest they had more than one individual. I would suggest that members around this table don't have more than one assistant, and they're lucky if they have a full-time assistant on work for this committee. So at best, members have one assistant, and yet, Mr. Chair, with the dozens and dozens of people available in the department to table motions on this particular bill, we did not see government amendments until just over 10 days ago, and we were to start clause-by-clause last Thursday. Members on both sides of this table have been working very diligently on Bill C-5 until Tuesday evening, and that, Mr. Chair, left us Wednesday to go through government motions. We had been assured by both the minister and the parliamentary secretary that our concerns would be addressed through the government's motions. So we had only Wednesday to go through the government motions to see where the gaps lay and to develop our own motions for a highly technical bill.

    Not only is this bill extremely technical and the motions extremely technical, Bill C-19 amends another bill. This is a very difficult thing that members consistently face, Mr. Chair, the lack of resources. Here we are trying to deal with a government machine that has dozens and dozens and dozens of individuals who, at a moment's notice, can prepare and provide these motions on a very technical piece of legislation, and yet members are to turn this stuff around in 24 hours. I find this absolutely appalling, Mr. Chair. I am very much in support of Mr. Comartin's motion that indeed, we have the proper time to go through technical motions, have proper reflection on this legislation, and do the kind of job parliamentarians are supposed to do in representing constituents, and other Canadians as well.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bigras, please.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I feel that we should have had the discussion indicated on today's agenda last Thursday. I would remind you that, according to last Thursday's agenda, we were to deal with future business concerning clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19. Had we done this last Thursday, we could have decided on a schedule and wrapped up our study of Bill C-19. However, we decided not to do so and today we find ourselves in a situation where it will be difficult to begin clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

    I am in agreement with Mr. Comartin's first and second proposal, namely, that the committee continue working in a constructive and intelligent manner. If we are still sitting here on Thursday, it would be good to have an information session on the Earth Summit, because we will not have any other opportunity to hear about the position that the government will be defending in Johannesburg.

    So let's suspend clause-by-clause consideration and have an information session on the Johannesburg Summit. I think that that would show that the committee wants to continue working, wants to be constructive and wants to operate in an intelligent manner.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

    I really appreciate our colleague Karen Kraft Sloan's bringing up an issue. I don't want to be personal about this, but many people on this side have to cover more than one committee. At the present time I'm up to here, and to try to get my legislative assistant tuned in to this is almost an impossibility, because he's still working on events of the other committee, where I am the critic, and that's veterans' affairs.

    There's another point too. I think this committee respects the chief critic from the Alliance, Bob Mills, and Bob could not be here, I understand, because of other events.

    I will be first to admit that I am not prepared at this time, with the other work going on in my chief critic area. I would have to take things very carefully and very slowly. I don't think we're going to get much done, because I would have a whole lot of questions to ask.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there was this request for members to turn their amendments around very quickly. Also, I think the government has been working on it's Johannesburg initiative. I don't see why there's a problem, when there are so many people able to prepare information for committee members on things they are already working on, in having witnesses on Johannesburg.

    Mr. Comartin, I would suggest that we go to the vote.

¿  (0940)  

    The Chair: There are no more speakers, so that suggestion is easily acceded to. There is also an indication on the part of Mr. Comartin, which I assume would be supported by the honourable opposition party, of a consent that this bill resume a similar position should there be prorogation. Do I take it that this is an acceptable assumption, that representations will be made to the respective House leaders, one of whom is present in the room, and that it is the will of the committee that the ADM in charge of international affairs at Environment Canada and the officials be invited to appear here on Thursday morning to brief the committee on Rio Plus 10?

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With all due respect for the consensus and goodwill that often exists in this committee, as you point out, it is a decision for the House leaders whether this piece of legislation comes back to the House. I think it's worth acknowledging that there is goodwill around this table, but I wonder if some of the opposition members wouldn't feel that they may be making an obligation they can't fulfil, whereas Mr. Comartin has said he has permission. I'd like to hear, if we go forward with that, if everybody else opposite feels that they have that kind of indication from the House leaders, or if perhaps we could just indicate to respective House leaders that--

    The Chair: Madam Redman, we have with us the House leader of the Official Opposition. He has nodded and that seems to be acceptable to him. We cannot accept from Mr. Bigras or Mr. Herron more than their goodwill in making representations to their respective House leaders. Mr. Reynolds, would you like to comment?

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that myself. I don't think other House leaders will, but I can't speak for them.

    The Chair: So it all rests on goodwill.

    Mr. John Reynolds: We don't want to see all this work go to waste.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Those in favour please so indicate.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, in anticipation that this motion would pass, I asked the clerk to make an approach to the department with regard to whether we could have a briefing on Thursday morning, and perhaps he could report to us what the response was.

    The Chair: Yes, he will do that. He will probably, before the end of the day, leave a message by way of an e-mail to the respective members of the committee, so that members can make plans accordingly.

    May I remind members of the committee that there is a very interesting panel on chapter 11 of NAFTA at the Chateau Laurier at 10:30 under the auspices of the Environment Commission.

    This meeting is adjourned.