ENVI Committee Report

The NDP concurs with the facts set out in the report and wishes to offer the following supplemental information for the record.

After being referred to the committee, the study of Bill C-377 proceeded, for the most part, as per usual. The committee heard evidence from a wide variety of witnesses with varying points of view and suggestions for ways that the bill as presented could be improved. Considering the length of time between the bill being initially introduced in the House on October 31, 2006 and the time when the Committee’s study began, on December 11, 2007, more than a year had elapsed. In that year, further information became available to parliamentarians in the science surrounding climate change internationally. That, together with evidence given by witnesses to the committee, precipitated a number of proposed amendments by the three opposition parties that were intended to improve the bill.

The committee moved rather quickly through the majority of the proposed amendments at the clause-by-clause stage of the consideration of Bill C-307 as noted in the report. A review of the minutes of those meetings shows that the government systematically voted against the amendments and clauses, but was out-voted by the opposition members. Perhaps it was for this reason that the government members began their filibuster, which lasted over twenty hours, as noted in the report.

The NDP took special note of the Speaker’s ruling of March 14, 2008, in which he stated, “. . . committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy.” He went on to say, “Frankly speaking, I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that many of our committees are suffering from a dysfunctional virus that, if allowed to propagate unchecked, risks preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given to them by their constituents.” This member acknowledges that on several occasions he challenged procedurally sound rulings of the Chair, not because of any lack of confidence in the Chair, but rather in an attempt to break the impasse that had been created by the government’s filibuster.

Ultimately, the NDP proposed a solution wherein the bill would be reported back to the House as amended without considering the remaining amendments, clauses and preamble. It is our intention to raise our outstanding amendments at report stage and appeal to the Speaker to allow their consideration at that time.

The amendments that remain would achieve the following: 1) Address the concerns of the Auditor General, who felt that the task of giving opinion on a minister’s statement fell outside of the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and would substitute the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy as the body to undertake this task; 2) Give the Commissioner of the Environment the more appropriate role of auditing the progress of the government’s commitments under this bill; and 3) Would provide for a definition of “greenhouse gases” for the purposes of this bill. These amendments are based upon the evidence given by several of the expert witnesses the committee heard from.

Many of the witnesses testified to the importance of enshrining the scientific targets found in this bill in law. Professor John Stone, one of Canada’s pre-eminent climate change scientists and part of the Nobel Prize winning IPCC, said, “Very simply, in my view, time is running out. What we do in the next decade or so will be critical to tackling the long-term threat of climate change.” (Committee Evidence, January 30, 2008). Furthermore, he said, “I believe that Bill C-377 is a useful contribution. The way I read it, it talks about having medium- and long-term goals. As I said in my introductory comments, I think it's absolutely essential in order that industry and we all have a long-term picture, and it challenges us and gives a level of emission.”

The NDP supports the committee’s decision to support the proposal that would end the impasse. We feel that Bill C-377 is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Parliament will consider and are happy to see it progress through the democratic process and be returned to the House for consideration. It is our hope that the Speaker will rule in favour of considering the remaining amendments at Report Stage and we look forward to the ensuing debate and eventual vote at third reading. 

Respectfully submitted,

Nathan Cullen, MP (Skeena-Bulkley Valley)

NDP Environment Critic