Evidence of meeting #4 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
To that point—and I appreciate the comments that Mr. Fast made—if we want to have questioning over the potential policy that's created as to how you select these sites, then I could see how that discussion could be warranted. But when we're basically asking to have a hearing on one particular location that already has a policy in place and a procedure as to how to determine what that location would be in consultation with the minister's office, then I don't see the benefit. I could appreciate it if our objective was to craft or help alter an existing policy, but not necessarily with respect to one particular location.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Because this has been delayed, I think that we owe it to ourselves to consider all of the different options. I know Ed has an option he wants to put forward as a motion, and I know that a number of us over on this side are thinking the same thing.
Since there isn't a rush to do this immediately, I'd like to get everything on the table and decide, as a committee, what different areas we wish to explore around legislation, studies, or whatever the case may be. Then we can decide what we want to prioritize.
1 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I think that Mr. Gerretsen has hit the nail on the head. What we're looking at is an issue that is subject to executive decision-making. The joint review panel has assessed information. The minister follows up on that process to make a determination in her role as member of the executive.
We're not an executive body; we're a legislative body. I don't think it's appropriate for a legislative body, such as ours, to insert itself into executive decision-making.
I, myself, care about this decision. I just feel as though we have to trust the process that exists. We have to trust that the minister has the public interest in mind and that she has the best advice coming before her, including all the information that the mayors and any non-Canadian parties may wish to put before her. I don't think it's sets a good precedent for us to be inserting ourselves into an executive decision-making process.
1 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Very briefly, I appreciate Mr. Fast's support to Mr. Bossio's comment. We'd be willing to suspend this in order to bring it into the mix. I understand committee members all have different proposals, including Mr. Fast and ourselves.
To Mr. Gerretsen's and Mr. Amos's point, I think this is the exact way to do this, actually. As legislators, it is what makes those policy decisions real. Has this process been sufficient and adequate in bringing in the public? Has it observed the science?
It is not meant to interfere with the ministerial process but parliamentary committees do this all the time. This is a real application of policy. One can go on an esoteric three month study of nuclear waste management policy across Canada or one can deal with the practical. I'm a more practically oriented person. I like the idea of its application in the real world.
To expedite what we're doing here now, Chair, I think it's procedurally okay for me to simply suspend this motion because I realize we're over time. I know the committee is going to be seized with—
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'll suspend debate, then, at this point in time. We'll adjourn that discussion and potentially take it up on Thursday.
I do want to ask the committee two things.
First, in terms of the information that you're getting, I just want to make sure you know that everything that is being handed out in paper is going up on SharePoint. Is everybody aware that's it's on SharePoint?
We're trying to be environmentally responsible here and we're seeing a lot of duplication of material. The briefing notes and the presentation that follows are going up on SharePoint, as are the meeting notices. Please make a point of checking your SharePoint before the meetings.
On another note, this morning I was at a sort of open house with environmental leaders. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found the process we're going through to be incredibly helpful to get an understanding of the problems within the departments and to get an understanding of the framework the departments under our jurisdiction are working with, and to have our own brainstorming about the things that are of concern and of importance to us.
There are a whole bunch of groups out there that are environmental advocates. They were on the Hill; they are on the Hill. There are quite a few of them. I can give you the names: Environmental Defence, Nature Canada, World Wildlife Fund.... There are a whole bunch of people here on the Hill basically connecting with MPs and trying to advocate for their issues. I think that before we make our decisions about which way we're going, it would be fair to make sure they have had a chance to come and have a chat with us. They are on the Hill this week. They are prepared to come on Thursday. We have a full agenda for Thursday with our motions, but I don't know if we should be moving forward with those motions until we have had at least a chance to hear what the leading environmental groups would like us to be considering at this committee.
I would like to hear them. I just want to ask the committee's opinion.
Mr. Cullen.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think it's a very nimble and wise decision. These are groups from Ducks Unlimited right across the board.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
These folks work and breathe this stuff. If we're setting out our track for the next number of months and perhaps longer, not hearing from them would seem passing strange.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's what I was thinking. I know we're all anxious and we're chewing at the bit to try to get moving with the committee, but I'd like to make sure that when we are moving, we are moving in the best direction we can.
Mr. Shields.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When you say they're all here, I have no idea what you mean by “all”.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Okay, there's my problem. Just because they're here, they have access to us. That excludes others, and that causes me a problem. You're just opening it up to those who happen to be standing at the door because we have a meeting. That's an issue for me and I don't think that's right.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That was exactly my point. We established a date on which we were going to have a broad discussion about the kinds of studies we want to move forward with, and I understood that the committee agreed to that. We have followed through on that. We've deferred other issues.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We want to be respectful. But there's a group of people on the Hill that haven't been specifically even identified in this discussion here, and by definition that would exclude others that could contribute just as well to us in prioritizing studies. To me, that's a problem. The process, if we follow down that road, is flawed.
I don't have any problem with us having our meeting as scheduled next time. We don't have to make any decisions there. We can talk about what kinds of witnesses we could bring forward to help inform studies that we should be undertaking, but I think we need a broad discussion. We've had lots of time to think about this. We have very much focused our discussions on the mandate letter that the Prime Minister issued to the Environment and Climate Change Minister. I assume others have as well and will be coming forward with proposed studies. I'm not in any way foreclosing an opportunity for key stakeholders across Canada, not just exclusively in that group, to speak to us and let us know what kinds of studies they feel are of an emergent nature, perhaps, and that we should be considering.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Although I agree with part of what Ed has to say, I think it would be a missed opportunity given the broad range of stakeholders that are here this week from all over the country. I met with a number of them this morning. You don't get the opportunity very often to have all these people from all over the country here in one place, in one city, at the same time. I would hope that in the future we would give the same flexibility if another group of stakeholders from a broad range of different backgrounds were also present in this city. Just because, unfortunately, we're not totally together and didn't realize that they were all going to be here at this time, they shouldn't be negated from an important part of this process of defining where this committee goes over the coming months and, potentially, years.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The points made across the table are really very good, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. I think I would like to hear from them if possible.