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.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
In terms of process, Madam Chair, since we're looking to prioritize, I think we should also be giving reasons why certain studies should be conducted, and why some should perhaps be postponed.
Let me first of all address Mr. Cullen's motion. I think I share some of the concerns of the other side. You may recall that one of the first points I made when we met as a committee was that, if we're going to undertake studies, let's make sure they are focused enough so that we can bring in the witnesses who will truly inform an outcome this committee can support by way of consensus. The broader a study is, and the more disparate the witnesses we bring to the table, the less time we have to ask questions. For me, it's always been about focusing as much as possible on exactly what we are looking for as an outcome from the committee and from the study.
With respect to Mr. Cullen's motion, I note that his motion fails in one very significant way. It does not include an economic context within which the study would take place. It simply refers to examining “measures necessary for Canada to contribute its fair share to international efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees”. It also sets out three sub-headings.
Quite frankly, this will not likely help us make progress without understanding the positive and the negative impacts of taking steps and implementing measures. I believe that's the significant failing of that particular study. Whether or not we expand it, you know that study is going to consume all of our time over the next 14 weeks and probably beyond, because that is the big issue facing the government right now. I'm reluctant to support that as the highest priority study.
Even though we came forward with a motion on migratory birds, I did want to note Mr. Amos' motion, which actually addresses three different studies. His first recommendation clearly includes a study of migratory birds and wetlands. It's a little bit broader than that. I think we've mentioned the protection of parklands and the conservation of the resources that are required to maintain healthy populations of wildlife and migratory birds. These are things that all of us should take an interest in.
I think we can probably say that we would support the study moving ahead based on what Mr. Amos has proposed. We believe it's still limited enough that we can actually get it done with the time frame we have available up to June.
Those are my comments for the time being.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
This is just a quick reminder to everyone that we're here past the end of June. Yes, we have 14 sessions to discuss and devise these studies, but let's not get trapped in what we can get accomplished just in that period of time. We're here for the next four years. Let's try to, once again, lay out an agenda that may start in one area, but acknowledge that something else more pressing may come along and interfere in that, and then we come back to it. We want to be able to accomplish something that is going to plant the seeds for a legacy that we can all look back upon and be proud of.
These are areas that are not necessarily going to be all solved in the next 14 sessions, but they are important and need to be moved forward.
Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
I heard somebody start to say three and a half years instead of four years yesterday, so the clock is ticking and we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. Amos actually covered a lot of what I was going to say, so I won't bother repeating it. The only thing I'd like to add is in regard to CEPA. I know that Mr. Eglinski mentioned how large that file could be. I think that's why Mr. Amos' motion specifically speaks to a number of issues—chemical management, air and water quality, and so on—so that we can really narrow the focus into those particular aspects of it. At least that's how the proposal stands.
Thank you.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you.
Mrs. Jordan.
Oh, wait, it's Mr. Cullen. I'm sorry, I keep getting... I'm not feeling well today and I'm not doing well today. My apologies, I'm sick.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't know if it's what I'm saying or how I'm saying it.
Very quickly, I am happy to amend my motion to include the economic context in terms of doing this.
I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised at the.... If climate change is the single dominant topic going on in the environment file right now, the reluctance to take it on in any kind of way, which is what I read here.... I mean, the little, small reference to it in a long list of other things is hardly meeting with the urgency. But it's an interesting moment in that the environment committee, which for many years has been seized with this question, is choosing now to not. It's a choice.
In terms of duplication, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, was something that officials from every department said that they are already engaged in. Heaven forbid we duplicate anything that is already going on and not be duplicitous at the same time.
I'm reflecting on where the committee is headed. I love birds and birdwatchers, in particular. God love them. I would never want to not spend time with them. The conservation ethic in general is very important to a lot of us.
I just give as a reflection, Chair, that this committee, over the 11 years that I've been here, has often been an important urging on of government to take some action on climate and the solutions around climate, which I think would be very important given the economic context that Mr. Fast talked about in which Canadians are wondering how we diversify our economy away from the boom and bust cycles that have been so prevalent these last 70 years or so.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Can I just clarify from Mr. Cullen if he is agreeing to amend his motion to include the economic...?
February 25th, 2016 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is just a point that I think is really important. When we do any study.... The concern that I'm hearing right now is getting it done on time or getting it done in a time frame. I think, to Mr. Bossio's point, we do have three and half years.
I feel that to put something forward and say we can't do it because we don't have the time in 14 weeks is a disservice to the motion because it can carry over, unless this committee—where I'm only here today—has decided that it has to be done in 14 weeks. But we do have more time and it can carry over.
I think that, if you want to look at a bigger picture, sometimes you have to look further down the road than just the time frame that you've put forward.
That's it.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
I just want to remind the committee that I did bring forward the point that it doesn't all have to be done sequentially. There are things we can do in parallel. You're absolutely right; there are things we can put past the summer break.
Mr. Gerretsen.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'll just follow up on Mr. Cullen's comment about the departments' saying that they acknowledge it, they're doing the work, they're acknowledging what the auditor had to say, and they're following up on that. I mean, my read of what I was hearing was that, yes, they are acknowledging receipt of these reports, but they're not doing anything about them. They are saying that they're going to, but look at the NEB.
I think that the real strength is going to be actually giving teeth to the commissioner to make sure that things get done and that she or her department can follow up on it again. My read on it was a little bit different. I didn't get the impression that things were actually getting taken care of.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I have to agree with that point, from the discussions we've had.
Really, we're talking about good governance and accountability. I think that's an important element of what we're trying to do as well in the committees.
Mr. Amos.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'll be really brief. I want to get across my perspective on what I was thinking in doing this.
I really believe it's fundamental for the legislature to hold the executive to account, to hold the departments to account. Based on my own personal experience in litigating over many years and also having previously worked within the executive and administration, I'm not convinced that we're at a point right now where we have the confidence of all Canadians that the whole of government is rowing in the direction of sustainable development, and we need to get there.
That's why I think it's our role as an independent committee to evaluate, beyond what the Minister of Environment may be doing to improve the environment for Canadians, what we can do separately as legislators to evaluate the federal government system as a whole and provide recommendations to change laws and regulations such that we can improve the system.
In looking at the third suggestion here, around the sustainable development act, I think it's fundamental in the broader question of how we're going to tackle climate change that we make sure we have the federal government's own house in order. Sustainable development strategies, which according to the commissioner are being either produced poorly or implemented poorly.... We need to work at that, and we need to make sure that the way they're doing them, pursuant to the law, is appropriate.
With these motions I'm looking to push government, and I'm hoping the committee seizes this opportunity. In a way it's a rejoinder to Mr. Cullen. I really feel that this is the most effective thing we could possibly be doing, looking at how the government is behaving as a result of laws and regulations that previous governments—not just Conservative governments—have put in place, and how we can improve those. That's not something that the minister would be necessarily focusing on.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I don't know if I should be addressing this here, but I just went to the back to get a coffee. There's no recycling bin, and there is a tonne of paper in the garbage.
Here we are, the environment committee. Why do we not have recycling bins in these committee rooms?
Sorry. Stuff like that makes me crazy.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're starting with a reduction in paper generation, and we'll move to recycling.
Honestly, I think it's about getting our own government house in order. I see this third suggestion by Mr. Amos focusing on that, getting our own house in order and looking at where the opportunities are. We see them all around as we move around in government, and we heard about a lot of them as we were hearing from the different departments. That's what I'm hearing.
Who's next up? We've run ourselves aground on the discussion of what's in front of us.
Remember, there was an opportunity for people to put anything else they thought wasn't in these on the table. I know I have some. I'm not bringing them forward because hopefully, we will get these done, we will do them well, we will see results, and we can then move on to more of the agenda that we discussed in our blue-sky.
Go ahead, Mr. Eglinski.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
No problem. If I really feel I'm being left out, I'll stand up and yell.
