Evidence of meeting #5 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 going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I would concur with Mr. Bossio. I would support a shift of priorities with what is number two on the motion as passed, then number three and one, and subsequently the earlier motion.
At the end of the day, we've agreed on our main priorities. There's a discussion around prioritization, but we're not exiting the realm of collegiality in disagreeing on the best order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
As a chair, I'm taking your suggestion, Mr. Fast. There is no question that we will be able to move forward on one of these two studies, and I think there are some we could do simultaneously. I was personally thinking we could move forward on number three in tandem with one of those other top two priorities, because one is within the House here and we could start working with the commissioner and getting some advice internally. It would be easier to get going. Then we would start working on one of the other two.
I'm listening to your suggestion and I don't know if that's really fair to me, because now it comes down to which way I am going to push first. I think we're going to have success at getting people in for either of those two tasks. I hear your thoughts, but I'm just not sure if that's really very focused for me. I think I need a bit more guidance from the committee. I'm struggling here because we have no consistency there.
Mr. Cullen is first.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would help if Mr. Amos or someone from that side would explain why. My sense is that Mr. Fast was keen on getting onto the protected areas piece first and was tempted to make his vote somewhat contingent on it. That didn't happen, but I've seen the reordering. I assumed that the first ordering was according to priority but maybe it wasn't or it's been reconsidered. I just don't know why. If there were an explanation, that would certainly help me out with regard to voting one way or another.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think that's fair.
Mr. Eglinski was next, and then we'll go over to get some clarity.
Why don't we go to Mrs. Jordan if you want to hear the answer to the question, or do you want to talk first?
Mr. Eglinski, go ahead and then we'll go over to the other side.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
All I was going to say is that I think everybody in this room has a consensus on number one, and we're all quite comfortable with number one. I believe we all understand that you have the power on that side of the room. We've had a pretty good meeting and a pretty good relationship, and I think we want a good relationship throughout our committee. But I think there has to be a little give and take. I'm seeing here that you want to deal with your three and put whatever else there is into the background. Make a little give and let us move one of our motions up a little bit. That's all I'm saying, guys. We're all working on the same page, and I think a lot of our topics are very similar.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
The way you came across, we're going to put everything to the back, and your three are going to be out front. I think if we're trying to work together as a group, as a team, let's give and take a little bit.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Just for clarification, my understanding is that there is time to get to all of these. Why does it matter which one goes first? I'm just asking.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Well, you're the government—or you represent the party that is in government.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If we weren't the government, we wouldn't be sitting at this table.
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would throw the question back to you. Clearly some instructions were given regarding the order that should be put forward at this meeting, so I'm wondering about the order that Mr. Amos is now suggesting. He originally came forward with a motion that showed what appeared to be priorities starting with the conservation piece. We feel that is something everyone in this committee could really get their teeth into at a running start. If you are doing things by consensus, I think you're going to have an opposition here that is willing to really dig deep and do it in a respectful way. I share Mr. Eglinski's view that this is an opportunity for us to prove that these committees really can work by consensus rather than through conflict or political agendas.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to speak in favour of what Mr. Fast has thrown out. I think my group is leaning that way. I'd like to suggest that the order of priority from our side is to take Mr. Amos' number two as our number one, the CEPA. We could work concurrently or as closely as possible on what was our number one, so we could get those two out of the gate. We would put our number three third, and then have Mr. Cullen's climate change piece as the fourth, knowing that we want to get to that as quickly as we can move these other ones through.
Essentially it's doing CEPA first, but recognizing, as Mr. Fast suggested, that there will be times when we won't be able to get witnesses, so we will be able to get that one started right away. We'll get number two out of the gate right away, followed by the protected areas piece.
Liberal
Liberal