Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's all. I just wanted a clarification.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm not sure dealing with them as motions necessarily serves our purpose here. Remember, each of the motions doesn't address the issue of priority. I would imagine that all of us would agree that most of the studies being proposed in these motions have some merit. I think the real issue is what priority should we place on each of them.

I do agree with the chair that perhaps we could continue the discussion. If we're going to do this on a consensual or collaborative basis we don't necessarily have to bring each motion forward. For example, if I brought forward the clean technology study under the motion that I provided notice for, it's an up or down vote. Your side might vote it down as a study that you would like to do but maybe not as a first priority. Voting up and down on that motion doesn't help us with that process.

I think you're right, Madam Chair, continuing the discussion on an amicable basis, even a show of hands, do we have consensus here that we'd like to do specific studies? Let's figure out which one we would like to do first, second, and third.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We have Mr. Eglinski and then Mr. Amos.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to follow up. I'm fully in favour of what Mr. Fast mentioned.

I was listening to Mr. Gerretsen's comments. I like your three recommendations.

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

Come and sit on this side of the table.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I didn't tell him to say that.

My grandfather would roll over in his grave and then send me a message or maybe call me there. Remember, I'm from Alberta; that's Conservative country.

I like your number one. You heard when I spoke earlier. My passion is there, migratory birds and stuff like that. We need to deal with them.

On your number two and number three—this is just an opinion that I want to throw back to you guys and I'm hoping John might back me up a little on this—I worked in the government for probably 40 years. I worked with audits coming in and was told we had to do things. Some good managers got things done; some bad managers didn't get things done. I always looked at audits as a way of catching the little things that maybe I didn't see as a manager and trying to correct them to the best of my ability.

I would love to see recommendations two and three looked at maybe next year when we start, and I'm going to tell you why. We have new ministers in charge of these departments. Let's give them a chance to take a look at their departments and take a look to see if they're going to get co-operation and agreement with their senior bureaucrats and see if some of the changes are happening before we do a quick study. We have three and a half or four years, and I think it might be very relevant that we go into them. I say let's just give them a little while to let the new leaders take the lead and see how their senior bureaucrats fall. They've had a recent audit. I think it was a good audit. I think they agreed to a lot of things. Let's give them a chance before we start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I appreciate what Mr. Eglinski is saying. I hope the members opposite appreciate that with this notice of motion, which included several studies, I was trying to encapsulate what I felt were the views of the government members that had been expressed, as well as those of the members opposite. This was my effort at encapsulating the areas of commonality.

In terms of prioritizing, my own sense—and this in part will also address the climate issue—is that we're going to be looking at something to do with environmental assessment at some point if the mandate letter is followed through on, and we're not going to have a choice. Likewise, we may well be faced with legislation around climate change. Who knows? I have no idea, but that could well happen.

Those are two huge issues. They're not mentioned in here, because I expect that we're going to be forced to do that, and that's going to take precedence over our own work.

Now is the time for us to seize upon work where legislation requires it. The CEPA review ought to have been done ages ago. A review was done in 2006-07. None of the recommendations were followed through on. I am informally proposing or mooting the idea that the CEPA work be given priority. I am indifferent as to whether number one or three would go second or third. I think right now we have a substantial piece that is in the public interest and that needs to be done, and we have an opportunity right now before we are sent legislation that we must review on a clause-by-clause basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a couple of comments.

I think everybody can probably appreciate that with my background and what I've chaired previously, the first one, Will's, is one that I'm most interested in. Is it the highest priority? That's for us to agree.

I would like to see us get to that at some point in the coming weeks. It's not something that has to be done in weeks one, two, and three, but I am hearing some support for that, and I appreciate that.

I do expect that there will be some big files coming to us. When I heard the commissioner talking, and with thirty-plus years in the public service, I was quite supportive of this number three, and it was simply to give closure to the audit process. I hear what you're saying, that the audit happens and then we entrust the departments to enable or to implement what they've heard from the audit. In my experience, I haven't always seen that come full circle, and if there is not a reporting-back piece, then we don't know if it's ever been done until the next audit happens. Given the resources, it may be a decade before the auditor gets back to these ones that have been dealt with, and given what we heard from her, they are very important issues.

My hope was that this would be one we could deal with somewhat quickly just to close the loop on that audit process so that the departments are really obligated to deal with what the auditor said. That's why I was quite happy to see the wording we had all come up with to really bring closure to that audit process. Does it start bending the curve we heard about from Mr. Cullen? No, but I saw this as an achievable one that we could tackle immediately while we're ramping up for these larger discussions that have to happen in society and in government.

To summarize my thoughts, I'd like to see us proceed with number one. It doesn't have to be first, but I'd like to see us get to it. I see merit in two and three. Eventually I do want to deal with the pieces that Mr. Cullen has brought forward. It's just a question of where they fit in, and I think that may be a bit down the road. We're going to have to get to them, but let's just get a couple of fast ones going and get a couple of recommendations out before we get busy with some of the other files that I expect we're going to be dealing with. That's my thinking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Before I go to Mr. Fast, I want to make a comment.

We heard quite a bit from the commissioner over the last two meetings, and I think you're right. We could say, let's think about just letting them try to settle into their new realm with the new leadership, but I also think that the commissioner is there and could be very helpful. If we could find ways, by looking at this to see whether we could bring a bit more accountability, I think it sets the stage, when everybody is looking for a new way.

I heard what you had to say, and my thoughts are that it's almost the right time to do it because of the change in direction and the change of leadership.

I just wanted to throw that in before I give the floor to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

There is one study that I feel there is a consensus on, and that is the first study proposed by Mr. Amos. I didn't want to raise it earlier, but Mr. Amos suggested that there was a consensus on the other two and that his motion reflected a consensus. It may have been a Liberal consensus, but I'm not sure it reflected a broader committee consensus.

But on the study of parks and wetlands and conservation and migratory birds, I sense that we do have a consensus. I would think that if in fact we can agree that there is a consensus on it, we should make that our first study. I still have to be convinced of the other two studies that Mr. Amos has proposed, but I'd put forward the clean technology one as well, which obviously I would be in favour of.

Let me add one other point. It has been mentioned a couple of times at committee today that since the minister is bringing legislation forward anyway, let's wait for that legislation to come forward and this committee will be asked to review it.

The problem with this—and I'm sure Mr. Cullen would share this concern—is that the role of this committee is actually to inform the work of government. Isn't that right?

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

That's correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

When legislation comes forward, it's pretty well baked in. There may be a little bit of tinkering around the edge, but there is no real informing of the legislation at that point. I've seen many pieces of legislation come forward in the past, and I feel that if in fact we're going to be effective in allowing government to make the best-informed decisions as it crafts legislation, this committee should be involved well in advance in that process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bossio.

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

Madam Chair stole a little bit of my thunder already.

The study of CEPA is long overdue. It should have been studied before now, but the opportunity didn't present itself previously. As a committee I think we need to be seized with this to get it done and to fulfill our legislative mandate to do so. To me, that would be priority number one.

As to number two, I would think that the Conservative side would agree with it, because accountability is a very strong principle within the philosophy of conservatism, and accountability is essentially what we're trying to bring here to the various departments, to the various agencies, and to the legislation overall. We're trying to get government to be more accountable and hopefully, through that study, promote not just environmental accountability but also fiscal accountability through the process of trying to find the synergies that can exist on both the fiscal and the environmental side. That's why I want to push forward with this. It's because of the conservation piece, because of the environmental piece, and because of the fiscal piece.

I would like to see those two be the first two priorities, and then absolutely my environmental side and my country-boy side wants very much to have a review done on protected areas, on critical habitat and recovery strategies, because we live it in the rural areas every day.

I really want to see us be able to accomplish those goals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I'm just trying to understand what we're doing here, Chair. We're not considering Mr. Amos' motion as one piece, I assume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, so just—

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

That would be like an omnibus motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

What I think is happening is that we have four themes in front of us, four proposed studies for the committee, and we are discussing some prioritization of those. We had talked about putting those motions forward, but we're discussing the prioritization. I'm watching the clock and I think at half past we should probably focus on getting the motions on the table.

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

Here's my guess on where things are headed, and tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm going to lose, but maintain, the position that climate change is the most pressing issue this committee should study along with the technical fixes that we can find in the clean energy sector to solve it. That will be defeated.

The Conservatives want to do something on conservation, which the Liberals like, but the Liberals want to do CEPA first. Why don't we get to a vote, look at studying CEPA, get some sort of conservation initiative that will follow it, and wait for climate to happen whenever it becomes a priority for this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm not entirely sure this is exactly what I heard.

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

That's why I said to correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, that's fine. I did hear quite a few people on this side talking about accountability and the last Federal Sustainable Development Act.