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.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Oh, sorry, and (d), as in, “(d) an assessment of the positive and negative impacts of policies”.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's "economic impacts of policies”.
Sorry to your staff, Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think we need to have a bit more clarity on exactly what was just said.
We're stopping after, “carbon price methodologies; and c) opportunities in the clean energy and clean-technology sector”, and adding, “and (d) an assessment of the positive and negative economic impacts”.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is everybody comfortable with that?
Okay. We're open for debate.
Mr. Gerretsen.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't disagree with this motion. I think this is a good motion. I think it's a little bit “pie in the sky”. By that, I mean that it attempts to look at things from such a high level that.... I mean, yes, I think everybody in this room, unless you've been living under a rock, to some degree or another believes that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. I'm not sure how we can effectively come to any real recommendations as a result of this motion as it's laid out here.
My inclination is to try to work on things that are tangible and that can have a real difference. I just don't know if this is something that is tangible. What kinds of recommendations are we going to be able to put forward at the end? But I'm definitely also not interested in voting against this, both from a practical personal level, in that I believe it, and also from a political perspective too.
You're not going to have the opportunity to say that I voted against this, Mr. Cullen.
I will vote in favour of it, but my concern is how it gets prioritized. That's the real issue for me. At the end of the day, I think all of these are good motions. It's about the priority.
I'm inclined to vote in favour of it, but I want to know, if we vote in favour of this one first, does it become number one in the abeyance list, or can we shift the priorities? That's perhaps a procedural question.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
My understanding is that it does not necessarily preclude the others and put it first just because we vote on it first. Our prioritization is something that we can do.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Not at all. This simply says that the committee will study this.
If there is some..... It's interesting because much of this is taken from the minister's mandate letter, so if it's too “pie in the sky”, we have some work to do.
12:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The second piece is that if there are some more defining characteristics of this, that would always be helpful, as Mr. Fast was able to help.
But this was never meant—and this is my last point, Chair—to be a motion to wedge. This is not a motion to make you uncomfortable. This is a motion to study what our climate change strategy ought to be and what potential we have to create economic opportunities out of that challenge, period. Every member will vote the way they vote.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If I could add to that, we do have other committees that may be seized with this as well. I'm not saying that should stop us at all, but I think that if we decide to vote in favour of this we will want to reach out and see what some of the other committees are doing so that we're not duplicating efforts. Let's see how this goes. Then I'll undertake to reach out to the other committees and see how we may work in concert with what they're doing if they're working on this too.
Mr. Amos.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Before we get to the point of voting on Mr. Cullen's motion, I would propose that we make an amendment to my notice of motion, such that his motion is included.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We can't do that. We now have a motion on the floor so we're going to have to vote on that motion, unless you want to do a friendly amendment that he accepts.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Hold on. I'm being given advice.
You can move an amendment to his motion and then we can vote on that. Okay?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I would move an amendment that Mr. Cullen's motion be amended to include all of the language in my notice of motion.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Do you see a reason why we need to do that? I'm just trying to understand why.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Chair, I think what Mr. Amos is trying to do is put Mr. Cullen's motion as the fourth order of precedence in his motion.
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
We're not talking about [Inaudible—Editor].
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
That's an accurate characterization of what I'm trying to do. I hear what you're saying, but that's just a characterization of what I'm telling you.
