ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 22, 2001

• 0903

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: [Technical difficulty—Editor].... I'm prepared to take motions to that effect.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I nominate Charles Caccia.

The Clerk: Mr. Knutson nominates Mr. Caccia, seconded by Mr. St. Julien. Any other nominations?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): I move that the nominations be closed.

[English]

The Clerk: No more nominations. Is everybody agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: I would invite Mr. Caccia to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I will spare you the usual acceptance speech, ladies and gentlemen, but at the same time I would like to thank you for your vote of confidence and your support.

The work of the committee will be a rather complex challenge when it comes to Bill C-33, which some of you have already spoken about, particularly Mr. Bigras yesterday. We therefore have work waiting for us very soon.

We also have opportunities ahead of us in relation to the study by the Royal Society, which saw the light of day, as you know, a week ago.

Also, as it has been indicated to me by the minister himself, there is a propensity or a favourable attitude toward having the Minister of Health here to discuss with the committee the government reply to the pesticide report produced by the preceding committee last May. Some of you were members of it.

If you combine these three items, you can see there is not going to be one dull hour ahead of us.

I welcome in particular the new members of the committee. I'm sure the challenge of sustainable development is one that will keep you attached to this committee and to its work. It is, as you know, an extremely difficult concept to apply—easy to describe in theory and very difficult to apply in practise.

Without any further delay—otherwise it becomes a rather lengthy monologue—I think we should move on with the rest of the business. There is another, bigger item waiting in the House of Commons at 10 o'clock, and I'm sure you would not want to miss the speech at 10 o'clock.

Can we then invite nominations for the vice-chair, please. Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I nominate Bob Mills.

The Chair: Mr. Mills has been nominated.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): I would place in nomination the name of Karen Kraft Sloan.

The Chair: Are there any further nominations?

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, I would nominate John Herron.

The Chair: Mr. Herron is nominated for the position of vice-chair. We have three names. Are there any further nominations?

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I move that we close the nomination process.

The Chair: Is there consensus that we close the nominations with the three names?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Fine. Thank you.

We will have to have a ballot.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I suggest we proceed in order. I'd like us to vote on the first name proposed, then on the second and then on the third, and so forth.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: That would be easier than having a ballot.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Do those members who have been nominated accept the nomination? Perhaps some will care to refuse?

• 0910

The Chair: No one has turned down a nomination. Barring exception, those who have been nominated have agreed to this.

Mr. Bigras, on a point of order.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the method suggested by my colleague opposite for electing the vice-chair is rather unusual. I don't think we should proceed in the order in which the nominations were received, because someone who may have been nominated earlier would have the opportunity to speak earlier. Members must choose from the three individuals who have been nominated. If necessary, we can use ballots or some other method to vote - we can discuss the actual process - but I'm opposed to the method proposed by my colleague.

The Chair: It's not necessary for you to express your opposition to a nomination.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I realize that.

The Chair: We're trying to find a solution that is in keeping with the standing orders. The clerk advised us to start with the first candidate on the list. If that's what the standing orders stipulate, then there's no problem.

[English]

We will proceed then with the first nomination, by Mr. Forseth, putting the candidacy of Mr. Mills, if I understood him correctly.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. Is it that normally we would elect a government vice-chair first and then an opposition vice-chair?

A voice: It doesn't make any difference which order.

The Chair: Apparently there is no established written rule, but we can proceed in this fashion. There are sufficient members present and we can proceed with the first nomination.

Those in favour of Mr. Mills, please so indicate.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Herron. Mr. Herron has been nominated for the position of vice-chair. Those in favour, please so indicate.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: So now we come to the third candidate, Madam Kraft Sloan. Those in favour, please so indicate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The vote is unanimous. Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan, vice-chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this is in keeping with the standing orders, but I wish to renominate someone who's name has already been rejected. Can I do that?

The Chair: For second vice-chair?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Do we have that in the rules? We can have two? All right, I'm told we have in the rules two positions for vice-chair. Monsieur Saada would like to propose someone?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I move that Mr. Bob Mills be elected second vice-chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills has been proposed as second vice-chair.

Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I move that Mr. Herron's name be put forward for the position of second vice-chair.

The Chair: We have two nominations. All right, we'll put them in the same order.

Those in favour of Mr. Bob Mills' candidacy, please so indicate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Mills is the second vice-chair. Thank you.

• 0915

Now we have a number of procedural items. These are routine motions we could perhaps deal with between now and 9:50, when we'll have to adjourn. The first one has to do with the services of the Library of Parliament, as needed.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: In this connection, may I also bring to your attention the fact that there were discussions in the spring about securing the services of an independent source for the discussion of the SARA legislation. I believe his name is Professor Rounthwaite, in Calgary.

This will, of course, have to be discussed at the appropriate time and decided upon. I'm just bringing to your attention the fact that discussions have taken place in the past and that Professor Rounthwaite was found to be available to this committee when Bill C-65 is discussed. He could be a very valuable addition, but we will not make the decision now.

Let's move on swiftly to item two, authorizing the chair to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least.... What was the ruling in the last Parliament? Was it three or was it five?

The Clerk: It was five, at least two from the opposition. It doesn't say so. A quorum of five present in order to hold a meeting—and probably there will be some interventions.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I think we should add that two members of the opposition should be present.

The Chair: I think that is a bit too strict. It would be wise to limit yourself to one; otherwise the committee may not be able to function. But we can discuss it.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I believe last time we had something similar to what Mr. Mills is advocating. We had—was it one or at least two? We had “at least one opposition member”.

The Chair: Your memory is correct. The clerk is confirming your recollection. So I stand to be corrected.

Mr. John Herron: Make it two?

The Chair: Two? You can live with one? I think it would make the work of the committee easier. Sometimes there is bad weather; there are all sorts of things.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, is it two or one?

The Chair: We are just coming down to one.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right. Thank you.

The Chair: So “five members...provided that there be one opposition member present of those five.”

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Number three: that a subcommittee on agenda and procedure be struck and that its members be the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and one member each.... By the time you read All that, you almost have an entire committee. Nevertheless, it is a good preventive measure, in case it is necessary.

Mr. Julian Reed: So moved.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Number four: that witnesses be given so many minutes for their opening statement. Oh God, this is going to be a long discussion.

We have a proposal here by Mr. Mills, which was just handed to the clerk. Would you like to read it? Or would you like to present it? Has everybody a copy?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Then more reason to present it.

• 0930

Mr. Bob Mills: The main argument concerns the witness. Ten minutes seems reasonable, certainly in any committees I've been on. Less than that and they really don't get warmed up, and it's often the chairman's job to try to keep them to ten minutes. So I think that's reasonable.

Because we represent 50% of the opposition seats, or slightly more, I believe the arrangement in the first round, and then going on, should correspond. So we're proposing something like this: we would start with ten minutes; the Liberals would then get ten minutes—because my experience has been that many government members feel they haven't had the opportunity to get in early enough on the witness, and it goes down the line quite a way; then we would come back with ten minutes, the BQ would have ten minutes, the Liberals would have ten minutes, the NDP would have five minutes, the PC five minutes; and of course then this would go into probably five minutes for each in the next round, in the same order.

Something like that works out as slightly less than 50% for us, and I believe it gives everybody an equal opportunity to get at the witness in the first round, based on the number of seats they hold in the House.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this proposal. Was any thought given to the business of dividing one's time—in other words, five—

Mr. Bob Mills: I think there'd be no problem if it was decided that two Liberals wanted to use that ten minutes, or two Alliance members. I see no problem with that.

Mr. Julian Reed: Fair enough.

The Chair: Let me bring you up to date with the traditions of this committee, and then I will recognize two members.

In this committee we have established a reasonably fine tradition, whereby we try to be as fair as possible to everybody and we don't give different time allocations depending on the size of the party, which means that the smaller parties receive the same time allocation as the large parties. That's how we have operated until now, and it has worked reasonably well. Also, by giving the same allocation, which has usually been five minutes, instead of ten, we have a better and faster rotation, so that more members can speak before the end of the two hours. And that has also worked reasonably well.

So I would urge the committee to consider an alternative to this proposal—for which I'm very grateful, because at least someone has already put some thought into it. For that I thank you, Mr. Mills. Perhaps we can scale it down to five minutes per intervention, in the hope that if the chair is reasonably sober and if everybody is alive and quick, it can be done within five minutes. Sometimes it goes beyond the five minutes, it's very true. But at least there is a faster interplay and interchange, and the question raised by the witness is not forgotten by the time the Progressive Conservative or the NDP member finally gets the floor.

Having said that, I have three members, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Herron, and Mr. Mills.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

I would like to support the chair's position on this. As a member of this committee since 1994, I know we have operated that way. It works very effectively. The other problem is that as we get into our studies, and often members have other obligations, particularly opposition members, we find that there may be only one Reform, one Bloc, one NDP, one PC member. So I think it's probably more effective if people who are here get their five-minute allocation. We always start with the opposition, and it's always been a very fair, lively exchange.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I think the arrangement we had during the last Parliament functioned quite well. At the time Reform—the Alliance now—as the official opposition, earned first crack at that, where they spoke for five minutes; then the Bloc followed with five minutes; then it went over to two government members, then to the New Democrats, and then to me. So it was all equal at five minutes per questioner, and it involved more individuals.

• 0925

I think it's a little bit revisionist, the rationale here, because Reform is saying they have half the opposition members, so they should have, essentially, half the time. Mr. Chair, what they're advocating makes it clear that they want to double their time, despite having less than a 10% increase in the number of their seats. That's a point of fact.

So I think what we had last time, by making it short.... If anything, the government has earned more seats. So I would advocate that we follow the same principle we had last time, whereby the Alliance has the first crack for five minutes, then the Bloc, two for the government, and then the New Democrats, and then me. That functioned sufficiently last time around, and I would move that we follow the same formula we had last time.

Also, Mr. Chair, you may recall that when we had marquee witnesses, such as the Auditor General or the minister, to afford time to the opposition, you went to the Alliance, Bloc, New Democrats, and the Conservatives in a line—rare exceptions for the Auditor General, for the ministers, because obviously the government members would have more contact with the ministers in a caucus format.

That formula I thought was very judicious before, and I would move that we follow it once again.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chairman, I think times have changed, and if we want to talk about numbers, nineteen to twelve, certainly we get into some percentages. I don't want to do that.

I think what I'm proposing represents the format of question period. The reality of the numbers is there, and I think we are under-represented in this committee, if you really want to get down to numbers in the House of Commons. I think that's the reality. That's what the electors said they wanted in this House, and certainly the Prime Minister knows that and he uses it often. That's the reality. The Liberal government is popular. They got more votes than the rest of us, but we also got more seats than the rest of the opposition combined.

If time is a problem—and I can understand the difficulty with ten minutes—the original proposal I put together last night would look something like this: we would take 45 minutes for the whole round, our party starting with ten, then the BQ five, the Liberals ten, us with five, the NDP with five, the Liberals with five, the PCs with five. That then gives you 45 minutes, which is much less time, speeds up the process, and is indicative of what's happening in the House, what's happening with numbers, and is the reality of 2001.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

There is one thing that we would want to avoid like the plague: to transfer from the House of Commons the atmosphere of question period to this committee.

An hon. member: I agree.

Mr. Bob Mills: I hear you, Chair.

The Chair: So we have the two proposals here, the one just outlined by Mr. Mills, the other one outlined by Mr. Herron. Are there any further interventions? Madame Sloan?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.

I would like to further emphasize the non-partisan nature of this committee, and I think as you become more involved with the committee, you will realize that. If we emphasize five minutes per individual, with deference to the opposition for the first questions, this is a formula that works. It also recognizes the individuals who come out to the committee on a regular basis, because we don't always have full attendance on either side of the table. I would also like to point out that there are second and third rounds of shorter duration, so that everybody gets an opportunity to ask their questions.

• 0930

I'm very concerned about getting stuck in a very sort of lock-step template that operates strictly on partisanship, because I think as you work with the committee you'll realize that it's a very non-partisan committee, and individuals get actively involved in the committee. I have to emphasize that the five-minute rule worked in the past and it will work in the future. Sometimes there are lessons we can learn from the past.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, followed by Mr. Reed.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I agree entirely with my colleague Mr. Herron. I served on the committee from 1997 to 1998 and during this time, I observed that we benefited from this diversity of opinion, which went beyond partisanship.

The formula proposed by my Canadian Alliance colleague would make the committee even more partisan, and that's not the objective here. The goal is to enrich our discussions, to hear a diverse range of political opinions from the various parties, to conduct business in a constructive manner and to examine specific issues as well as bills. I think the committee needs to take all of this into account.

In light of the experience gained in 1997 and 1998 and judging from the views of my colleagues who have been on board since the beginning, I think we've worked well together.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed, please.

Mr. Julian Reed: I agree, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the experience of the committee and what we have done.... Very often attendance isn't complete, but with the method we have used, if you're here, you get your time. That, in a sense, constitutes the fairness of the system we use now, and there's an incentive to be here and to participate.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'll be brief. As only an occasional member of this committee, I should show some restraint. However, judging from what I've heard, a fairly broad consensus exists as to keeping the formula already in place. I move that we vote on this.

A member: Hear, hear!

[English]

The Chair: It seems as if we are ready for the vote. Thank you.

We have the proposal by Mr. Mills, which we'll put to a vote. Would you like to speak to it again?

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I think this is quite an important item. I certainly agree with what's been said already, about cooperation and so on in this committee, and I look forward to that. I don't want to make this an antagonistic thing, but I do think it's very important. If you do your homework and are here.... But if you're not here, well, I'm not going to defend you. I think it's very important that we do this.

I wonder if the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. We need to be over at the House very soon. Let's talk about this and look at various options, and if I may, I will move to adjourn and bring this up at our next meeting.

The Chair: The motion to adjourn is one of those that cannot be neglected without serious consequences, so we'll have to vote on the motion to adjourn so we can hopefully complete the work we have done up until now.

We have a motion by Mr. Mills that we adjourn.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now go back to the original proposal. Mr. Moore, you wanted the floor.

Mr. James Moore: Yes. We didn't propose this for the purpose of enhancing partisanship on the committee side. We just wanted to make it—

Mr. John Herron: No.

Mr. James Moore: You may think so, Mr. Herron, but we have not proposed this for partisan purposes. How partisan a committee may be is entirely within the purview of the people who participate in the committee.

If we—we being the opposition or the government side—decide to be partisan within the realm of questioning, that is an individual choice made by individual members. It has nothing to do with the rotation or the time taken for the question. It has to do with the line of questioning that's brought forward and the personal questioning style individual members bring to the committee.

I also wanted to ask for clarification as to whether we were going to be voting on Mr. Mills' proposal or the chair's proposal.

The Chair: It will definitely be first Mr. Mills' proposal and then Mr. Herron's proposal, but I thank you for your intervention, which is very helpful and which clarifies some thoughts.

Are you ready for the question as per the proposal by Mr. Mills?

(Motion negatived)

• 0935

The Chair: We will now address Mr. Herron's motion. Mr. Herron's proposal was that we adopt the same method this committee adopted in the last Parliament, as defined by him with support from Mrs. Kraft Sloan. The proposal is for giving five minutes to everybody but giving precedence to the opposition parties—using some discretion, which the chair sometimes gets away with. If the chair does not behave properly, please bring it to the attention of the chair and we will always try to accommodate you.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We will move swiftly here to the fourth item, which has to do with witnesses. This was partially raised by Mr. Mills in his original intervention, when he suggested ten minutes for witnesses—if I remember correctly. Mind you, sometimes it goes beyond ten minutes because you can't stop someone who has been launched into orbit. But we try to limit them.

Those in favour of ten minutes per witness, please so indicate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We have already dealt with the questioning issue in a motion. It will be for five minutes.

Now we can move to number six. It's about travelling and accommodation to a maximum of.... Mr. Clerk, can you enlighten us as to how we did it in the last committee?

The Clerk: The last time it was two people per organization.

The Chair: It is moved that it be two people per organization.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The next item is before you. It's a motion to authorize the clerk to do certain things.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: This is an important one, concerning the notice that must be given before a substantive motion may be presented to the committee. It used to be 24 hours. Is it still?

The Clerk: It's up to you.

The Chair: Is 24 hours acceptable? It is so moved.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, on the 24 hours, what if someone gave notice at a Tuesday afternoon committee meeting and they wanted to make the motion on Wednesday morning? Would that be considered 24 hours?

The Chair: It would be nice if it were given on a Tuesday afternoon because that would automatically make 24 hours for the Wednesday.

Mr. John Herron: But if it were Wednesday afternoon and they wanted to make the motion at Thursday morning's committee meeting, would we have to stick to 24 hours?

The Chair: It also depends on the gravity of the motion. If it is a weighty item, then of course 24 hours is usually needed to get help.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: The next item is for the purchase of gifts. Are there any questions or comments on that?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The next item has to do with working sessions during meal hours.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The next item has already been in practice but it needs to be reconfirmed.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The next one has to do with authorizing the clerk to distribute documents.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The meeting is adjourned.