Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Good morning, committee.

I would like to welcome Bernadette Jordan to the table. Darren Fisher is introducing a private member's bill today. Thank you for joining us in committee.

I want to get something clear and out of the way because I've had a few discussions on it and I want to ensure we are all clear and all operating under the same guide. We have a routine motion that says:

That a forty-eight (48) hours notice, interpreted as two (2) nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the Clerk of the Committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour be deemed to have been received during the next business day.

The interpretation of the clerk and many other committees is that as long as they pertain directly to the work under consideration at the meeting, they are admissible. I want to ensure that everybody understands that and is comfortable with that. Does anyone have any comments on that? Okay.

My intention at the meeting today, and we talked about this three weeks ago now, is to determine how to proceed. We've had some great information sessions to help us get our minds around what we might want to consider in our work as a committee.

Today was to be a further refinement. We had a blue-sky. We had some good department presentations and commissioner presentations. Today was an opportunity for us to review all that, not necessarily review it, but bring it together and formulate a plan and prioritize it, so that we could start in the committee.

We have motions in front of us and if you go the formal way, it's all about addressing the motions and whoever gets the motion on the table. I would like, if I have the agreement of the committee—and this is what I thought we'd kind of proposed before—to have a one-hour discussion on what the ideas are that the committee should consider.

There were four motions that were brought forward for us to consider. I don't think that has to be exhaustive. I think they are good. People have been very busy thinking about what we should be doing and I very much appreciate that. It does not have to be exhaustive and if anybody has something else, that was the point of having this meeting, to bring forward ideas that reflect what we've heard and what we might be able to do in committee.

I wanted to know if the committee agrees that we would have that discussion in the first hour. We can discuss the motions that people have brought forward, but we won't table the motions until the second hour. Then we'll have had a chance to flush these out together. Some of these and maybe others can be combined. I don't know, but that might come through in the discussion.

What are the thoughts of the committee. Is there agreement on that?

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

We have three people who have brought forward a number of motions. Maybe we could give them the opportunity to start off, individually, explaining their motions and the idea behind the thoughts of the motions, and then we could go into a discussion after that. Is that all right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm completely fine with that. It gives us a chance to flush out what people were thinking.

I want to ensure that we have an agreement that we won't table the motions officially until....The committee is able to do whatever it wants to do, but I want to get an understanding that we still have the free forum in the first hour of the meeting and then we can get into the serious business of tabling motions in the second hour of the meeting. It gives us a chance to understand what everybody is thinking.

I see nods over there. Is anybody against that?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think what you're trying to avoid is getting into a fierce debate on one motion and then seeking a vote on it, and then moving on in that sort of more traditional process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's fine to avoid that, but my only concern is that if we're too blue-skyish again, it will just be a repeat of the last conversation we had.

I'm interested in themes. From the last conversation, we went around the table for a couple of hours. We came out of it with some broad themes that I made some awkward attempt to encapsulate before we finished. If we had a conversation that was directed toward broad categories that the committee could spend its time on, that would be helpful to just not end up after 60 minutes having had a more general wandering conversation about life and the environment, if you know what I mean.

We need a bit of direction, picking up on not having wasted the last two hours we spent on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I do agree. I don't intend for this one hour to be a blue-sky again. It's really about refining what we've heard and coming down to some consensus on how we're going to move forward.

I agree with that ambition.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what Mr. Cullen is saying. I think it's time to start narrowing this down.

You mentioned four motions. I know that one came this morning and was distributed by email. I just want to make sure that in the context of the next hour, we can discuss that motion as well.

If I could, I'd suggest, at the request of the clerk, that the motions be distributed in SharePoint as well. I just heard, via the clerk, from a staff person that normally the motions aren't put in SharePoint, but with the consent of the committee, we could do that. For me, it's just easier to keep it all in one place. I like the idea of that. I think it goes to supporting the environmental initiative of using less paper.

With the consent of the committee, I would ask that the clerk share those in SharePoint in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think that's an excellent idea. Does everyone agree that all of this will show up on SharePoint so that we don't have to distribute it at the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

I think Mr. Fast was first.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you. I notice that we've received hard copies of the motions. I think all of us had these motions in digital format or otherwise beforehand. I'm not sure that this is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think you're absolutely right. We are the environment committee, and we need to try to focus on being environmentally responsible and reducing the paper. I think the support staff are just trying to make sure that we're all in a good place—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

—so we will, going forward, have all of the motions in SharePoint, and we'll make sure that we'll have our iPads ready for the meeting.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I agree with Nathan, Mark, and Jim as far as trying to scope this meeting so that.... We have four motions in front of us, so we could maybe hear from each individual what the thoughts were behind the motions and have a discussion around them. Once that's complete, whether it's an hour or 45 minutes—cut it off at an hour—then at that point, decide that we've had enough discussion to now move to the motions and go through them.

I think that would be an efficient use of our time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's excellent. I'm going to start the clock. We're going to start at an hour.

Who would like to go first?

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The first motion that I submitted by way of notice focuses on a comprehensive study of clean technology. Having reviewed the minister's mandate letter, I think it's clear that green and clean technology will play a very significant role, not only broadly speaking but in the review of the approval process for resource projects. As proponents of these projects come forward, they're going to be expected to implement the cleanest technology available to them. It would be very helpful for this committee to understand what that looks like, and what the scope is for using clean technology as an economic driver in its own right, the commercialization of clean technology and our trade opportunities around the world.

I have often noted that Canada's future does not lie in assembling widgets. Our future lies in the knowledge economy. The high-paying jobs are going to be more and more in sectors of our economy that very much rely on knowledge. As we deal with clean technology, as the world is obviously embracing clean technology, as the Asia-Pacific region, APEC, has embarked upon an environmental technologies agreement—and now an environmental goods agreement under the WTO—to improve the trade of clean tech around the world, I think it would be appropriate for this committee to do a comprehensive study on what clean technologies are available to improve our environment, and the degree to which that in itself can become an economic driver for our economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. That's great.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, if I can just close off that thought, we're trying to prioritize. Four motions have been provided by way of notice. I believe that Mr. Amos' motion actually is proposing three different studies, so essentially we have six studies that have already been proposed for consideration.

I would suggest that the clean technology study should be among the very top ones that we consider, simply because it falls smack dab in the middle of the minister's mandate letter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks.

I think there's an opportunity for two birds with one stone here, because I think Mr. Fast's motion on clean tech is the solution part of the challenge. It's the second side of the coin around climate in general.

I'm looking through the minister's mandate letter as well. This is the first and predominant piece that is directed towards her and the new government, which is that if there's a challenge proposed on climate and a recent commitment to the world in Paris, part of the question that follows is, how do you do it? What does it mean and then how do you do it?

The clean tech is the answer. Actually, it's the much more optimistic piece of climate change, rather than the last 20 years, which have been about parts per million and two degrees and all these sorts of things that have often been framed very much in the negative. Many of us have argued that there's not nearly as much attention given to the positive side, or the opportunity side, which is around what that knowledge economy is that Mr. Fast talks about. What are the clean-tech solutions that we need to start generating more of in Canada, not just for the climate reasons but for reasons of a stronger economic outlook?

If there's a way—and I think this is where this eventually comes to—some of these motions or a coupling together of ideas would be very helpful, but for the environment and climate change committee not to take on some type of climate change assessment.... As we heard from officials just last week, how do you bend the curve? The previous government had a target over there, but the line is pointing up over here. The new government has said that target is their floor. That's nice, but the solution piece lies in what Mr. Fast was talking about. How do you bend the curve so that our economy is more efficient and is producing more of those highly paid high-tech jobs? I see that as one category, frankly, I think: meeting our obligations and talking about what Mr. Fast is talking about.

The second broad category, if I look at this—and it's another motion, as Mr. Fast brought in a little bit of what Mr. Amos suggested—is about protected areas and migratory birds. That would be a second broad set of studies around conservation and the migratory birds element, which I think would be very helpful for the committee to get into.

Those are the two pieces that I would raise right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I didn't know if we were going to stay on each one just so we stay—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

No, I think we should stay on the broader categories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's fine. I'm good with that.