Evidence of meeting #2 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.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
That's what I suggested to the witnesses, and that would be my approach going forward as well.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Perhaps, but what I have to deal with is that I have the former commissioner saying there are 197 different measurements of SDGs, which is true—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, but on SDGs, there are 17, right? There are 17 and then it works down.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There are 17, and exactly how many of those deal with climate?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's the test that I deal with. My concern right now is our national targets and how we're going to get there. That's a very fair question for all members on all sides of the House to be asking. I very much appreciate the efforts, or the adaptation efforts, if we can use that term, to try to get some things done, but if you then say....
Environment Canada does report on these measurabilities right now, on what kind of climate outcomes and GHG outcomes are happening—badly, but they do.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, but in terms of the reporting mechanisms you're talking about right now, this is a heavily government-focused, bureaucratic motion that we're dealing with. I'm suggesting that there's a pile of people banging on our doors right now who may be at that provincial-federal table but probably aren't, frankly. This includes first nations, by the way, that didn't have a great experience in Vancouver. They're saying they need to be inputting into this thing somewhere, and they think our committee will be wonderful. It also includes the clean technology sector, which has left this country...and so on. I can make my arguments for it.
This is where I'm curious. It's sort of like a renegotiation of a negotiation that we completed. In that first negotiation we had, the Conservatives had this idea around looking at the clean tech sector. We said, okay, and conceded to adapt that into the climate change study. I won't speak for my Conservative colleagues, but it's an unusual place to go—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
But that's fourth on the list. From what we agreed, it was fourth on the list.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, and in the first calendar I was sent, it was said that we might get to that fourth item maybe by the fall.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do you understand, then, that I sit back and say that the opposition parties have tried to make some concessions, agreed to this timetable, and we're going to then spend all of these meetings, including four extra meetings, on a topic that we didn't contemplate before simply because the minister asked for some consultation from committee?
That is to say, if the minister gets up tomorrow morning and asks us for another consultation process, we'll spend another few meetings on that as well. That is a bad way for the committee to work, because it's beck-and-call time, and we're obviously not that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I had entertained bringing climate change up into June. I didn't do it, because I was still trying to figure out what we're going to do. It doesn't have to be in the fall. We do want to continue making progress on the ones ahead. You don't seem to see the opportunity that I do to have an impact on climate change with the sustainable development strategy and the changes to the act. I think you do see it but you still feel that it's.... I think you heard the discussion there that they felt they had to bring it down to within the purview of the departments to have it approved. That wasn't the original mandate or intent when they brought this forward, which was about what the federal government could do to have impact across the full spectrum.
Our commissioner mentioned how powerful it would be if you applied this to the budget, which many departments do not. There's so much we need to do. It's a small step but it's a fairly significant step if we can get changes to the act that give it teeth, that make sure it's applied and that it's applied more broadly. It doesn't have to just say “make sure we reduce the paper in that department”. It's one of those decisions the department is making on the broader environment of Canada that can have significant impacts on the environment. That's what I see.
When I see what we have the ability to change.... Maybe because you've been in government longer than I have, you feel that this thing has been on the books for a long time and it hasn't really gotten any legs and teeth and it really isn't where we need to spend some time. I get it. I get the perspective. Maybe I have hope because I only just got here.
I am hopeful that we can give it legs and that we can make it useful. It's a powerful piece of legislation, and it's something that other governments around the world, other parliamentarians, are struggling with—making sustainable government, sustainable development goals that are now embedded for the first time in this sustainable development strategy. How do we give it teeth? How do we make it work? I'm seeing that as an opportunity to further your fourth goal, which is how we make this committee have an effect on climate change.
I don't know what else to say, but I do know that at some point today, we better wrap it up, because we're going to have to get to how many days we are going to give to these different topics. If we go back to not spending any more time on the federal sustainable development strategy, whether one or two or none, and we just leave it and wait until we finish with these other two tasks, protected areas and CEPA, then we will miss an opportunity. That's what I see, and I want to make sure we don't do that if we can avoid it.
Go ahead, Mr. Eglinski.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I thought that at the last session we had here, we all agreed, whether formally or informally, that we would hold two sessions and we would look at it. We've held one. Now you come back today and you want to add another three.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, I had sent this to you guys back on March 8 before we started to actually figure out the schedule, so it's not that I'm changing it. I put out there very early on what I thought we wanted to do following on Nathan's motion on the 9th.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Okay. I think that we can work and have another session. I think it would be very worthwhile. I think this is a very excellent topic to deal with.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'm prepared to go on to the 14th for half a day, and if we need to stretch it, we'll stretch it. But I think we can do due diligence in the next two meetings or a meeting and a half, but I'd like to see us start to move ahead on some of the original recommendations. We're eating up time and that time is valuable.
I totally agree with what everybody has said here, but maybe I have a few more concerns about conservation that I really want to spend time on. I really want to give due diligence to the things we agreed on originally.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. I think we all agreed that federal protected areas were going to get some of our attention early on, and that was going to be in conjunction....
Did you guys want to add anything else before I throw a proposal on the table again?
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'll quickly mention that I think if we focus our FSDA analysis, and we move quickly into recommendations and focus particularly on the issues that were raised today and specifically on climate, then I think we can achieve...as you suggest. I'm on your page, Chair. I think you're demonstrating our good faith intent by trying to integrate climate into this.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
If anything, I think what we're really trying to do is to satisfy, to the best of our abilities, desires from the opposition, from Mr. Cullen, to get more focus on climate.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Really, I think now we're just quibbling around a meeting here or a meeting there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I actually believe that we are all on the same page. We're just fighting over details.
I think we are on the same page. Climate change is the biggest issue facing the world and we do not want to leave it.... If we can build improvements along the way, then we want to do that. We did agree that we would do CEPA. We did agree that we would do federally protected areas in tandem.
This opportunity was to be third, but it has come forward early, with the minister's ask of us to give comments. I would like to suggest that on April 12 and 14 we focus on trying to very quickly get to the point where we can comment on the strategy and get the strategy, and that anything we might want to put forward on that gets done on the act, picking up on what happened today, and that we try to get that into drafting instructions so that our great analysts here have a chance to start working on a report.
We will do that in the two meetings of April 12 and 14, as best we can, okay? On April 19 and 21, we can start on the federally protected areas review. I am hopeful.... I want to leave the door open so that if we find on the 19th that we need one more meeting on the 19th to do whatever we haven't been able to do in those two sessions.... I am hoping we can get it all done, but if we find that we can't, I don't want us to lock the door and then be stuck. We have the 12th and the 14th, with a question mark on the 19th, depending on how well we've moved through getting to resolution on what might need to be put in a report.
The 19th and the 21st will be the beginning of our federally protected areas review. If the 19th isn't required or if it just moves one meeting, and we do that for.... I had put in quite a few weeks. I had put in the 3rd, the 5th, and the 10th, so this would be the 21st, the 3rd, the 5th, the 10th, and the 12th.
Where's the witness list for this? We were trying to work through this yesterday. We have quite a lot of witnesses who want to come forward on the federally protected areas. We're probably going to need at least four meetings to listen to all the witnesses who are being brought forward.