Evidence of meeting #1 for Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My point is this. “How would you give it teeth?” would be the central question. The list of witnesses, because this is so “unreferred to”, is very small.
I guess there are two things. One is that it was a concession from the opposition that we combine two opposition motions, put them into one, and put it forward. It was adopted by the government, and it doesn't appear until the fall. Just in terms of the dynamic of how a committee works, that's a thing.
You're trying to answer it through the FSDS, and I'm saying it's unacceptable in the sense that it doesn't do what we hoped it would.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Mr. Cullen, in fairness, I'm trying. Fair enough. If we all decide that the fourth one moves to.... Honestly, the committee agreed unanimously to move two things along simultaneously, and it wasn't the one that you're talking about. It was trying to do the protected spaces, so I am trying to move that one along.
You're right. I think we do have a problem if we're going to have four things up in the air all at the same time. I'm just telling you that I put it this way because we had that point that you're making as fourth on the list. Unless we all agree to change the priorities, it's hard for me to move the other one forward.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It was bumped up by somebody else.
The government gave us a timeline.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My point is that it's nice the government has asked us to comment on this, as it has asked the entire public to comment on it. That's fine. I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't hear about this thing on the doorstep once. We could go out knocking on doors this afternoon and find out yet again no one knows what this thing is. Many people working in government don't know what it is, and that's a problem that we should identify and fix, absolutely. Wonderful.
There's one central question: why don't you use it, and how would it be effective? Great. I can see a panel of witnesses, former PCO and current people leading the federal bureaucracy, who could help answer that question.
My suggestion is that the elephant walking around the room for the federal government, and for the Environment Minister...her mandate letter emphasizes and clearly states that climate change is the issue. Trying to mush that into this sustainable development review is a square peg in a round hole.
Coming out of this and saying this thing will have teeth is not a climate strategy. It is not an opportunity and a look at the economic side of things. I'm going to continue to argue that we should take on climate change this session, before the summer. The fall is an unknown beast. We will have CEPA to continue and to finish, which is great. I have no idea why we'd want to spend that kind of time on FSDS. The government can ask for it whenever it wants. The committee, being the master of its own fate, chooses how to allocate its time. I'm suggesting that a tool that has gone underutilized for three decades creates an interesting question. Why doesn't it get used? We can answer that.
I'm saying what Canadians want to know from this committee, and from this government, is what are we doing about climate change? What kinds of opportunities are out there in the clean tech sector? Why did our investment drop 50% last year while it went up globally? Those are good questions to ask that are relevant to people's lives.
I've made a suggestion in terms of timing. If the committee or chair want to refuse it, or adapt it, or whatever, that's fine. To go over it one more time, it's that we'd hear from the commissioner of the environment. We'd hear from the minister, who will also speak to the estimates. There would be five meetings on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, five on protected areas, five on clean tech and climate change, and two potentially longer meetings on the federal sustainable development strategy, with an emphasis on why no one uses this act and how we can put teeth in it.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The only question I have is related to the proposal. When we were first talking about the priorities and the schedule, there was a question that we were going to put to the innovation group about how much of the clean tech they're going to be taking on. I wonder if we heard back.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I have pursued that with the innovation group. They are not yet where we are with our committee in terms of exactly what they're going to be doing. They didn't have an answer for me. I think probably this week we'll have more information about what they're taking on and in what order.
Can we get this week under our belt? I think they'll have a better handle on what they're doing. This is a cross-committee initiative. The science and technology that's going to be involved in climate change is going to be handled by different committees in different ways. My intention was that if we leave it a little then we'll have a better handle on who's doing what and how we may come forward together and support each other in our initiatives at the different committees.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
While we're waiting, I'm supportive of what Mr. Cullen has put forward in this breakdown and trying to tighten up the FSDS piece. Instead of firming up five clean tech and climate change ones, then yes, but if somebody else is going to be championing a huge piece of that, it may free up time to move some of these other ones. Let's plan to front-load with some of the other pieces. We have the commissioner of the environment, and we're working on CEPA, so let's try to do the FSDS earlier on so we can meet the timeline, get it done and off our plate, and start into the protected areas and into the clean tech climate change. I'm agreeing with that. I would just like to know who else is also working on it.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. Thank you.
I'm still trying to get a handle on what the other committees' agendas are and how they may affect what we're doing here.
Mr. Fisher.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I am just wondering. Nathan is putting a time frame on some of these things. Is that a thing that would continue if five meetings turns out not to be enough? I would hate to say, “Okay, this is the end of the fifth meeting. We are 10 hours into this, and we've had all our people through. We are not really finished with this, or some people feel we are not finished with this.” Unless there is a mandated date by which we must have a report prepared, I don't think we should have a solid five. What happens if we do it in four? What happens if we need six or seven?
I know you are not putting forward a solid motion. What you are doing is throwing it out there for discussion. I am new to this, but how do we know we are going to get the work done in five? Do you mean, based on your experience?
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I will turn it over in a minute.
Can I make a suggestion? Part of my problem is that I don't have as much experience as you may have. I was trying to figure out how many people may want to come forward and what we might need to know and ask questions about before we feel comfortable that we can come forward with the report. We took a shot at it, just for this spring period. Hopefully, we'll keep going as a committee and we'll have a chance to have a whole fall session.
I think we need to get a sense of what some of the other committees are doing as well, before we go too far out. Maybe I am trying to plan too far out, and maybe we should back it up a bit. I just wanted to put it out there, so we have a sense that everybody is going to get some time. Your point is, “Well, the issue that was really burning for me is not going to happen until the fall, and I am not happy with that.” Is that right? That is what I am hearing. How do we try to address that in some way without having so much in a state of being incomplete that we are starting to spin in a variety of different directions?
1:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To speak to your last point, and to what Darren had to say, I agree. What typically happens with a committee is that you get into something and then you leave it because, if you are writing a report for example, the analysts have to go away and write it. That takes time, and then a few weeks later we come back. It is quite normal for committees to have a few things up in the air, because otherwise you just have to wait for the report to be written and do nothing in the meantime, so you are working on other things.
As for the question of how you close it and know that when you're done, you're done, it goes both ways. The one we have on CEPA is a bit open-ended because it is large. It's a big act, and it is going to go into the fall.
I sat on finance before this. In finance, everybody and their dogs want to testify, and you just have to put a limit on it. Otherwise, you'd never get to actually finish, and it becomes quite additive after a while. You'll get one industry group that repeats what the one before it said, which is nuanced off the one before. At some point you say, “Okay, we get it. You want this tax measure.” It's the same on the environment. You could have 40 environment groups in here talking about water, and 60% to 80% or more are going to be very similar, so you cut the list. Otherwise you'd be here forever. In the past, sometimes governments have used that as a tactic where you get 15 meetings on something that needs three, just as way to not talk about something that they'd rather not.
Time is what we play with here.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We are trying to make this committee have a conclusion.
Picking up on what you said, I still think this has to be flexible. If we ask each of you to think about the witnesses we might want to bring forward, that will inform our decision on the time, because right now I am completely guessing.
Why don't we go back and see what witnesses we might want to hear from on the federally protected areas review and on the federal sustainability development strategy? Let's look at that and see. Of course, as we are going forward on CEPA, we have some already, but I am sure there are going to be some more. Let's look at our witness list for these issues and do the same thing for climate change as well. Let's put that out there. Let's look at our witnesses on the four topics that we are planning and see if that will help inform us on how many meetings we might need to have.
I am guessing. I don't have the experience. You are guessing, to a certain extent, with your perspective. What do you think about that? I am trying to find a way we can get a comfort level on the plan.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'm comfortable with what you just said.
Why don't we move the Federal Sustainable Development Act ahead to the 22nd and get going on it, bringing in the key people so that we can ask those relevant questions?
You said it's a priority.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Yes. I'm suggesting that, instead of filling the 22nd, why don't bring in the key people we need to question then, as Nathan said, about why they haven't been following through, what's wrong, and so on, then follow through on the 12th again with sustainable development?
At the end of that meeting on the 12th, we'll decide who we need or what we think we need.
Let's get this thing put aside so that we can deal with the stuff that I think we're all really interested in here. I'd like to see it gone, because we have a deadline to get that report in as asked.