Evidence of meeting #7 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 risk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Then I would be pleased to move that figure as our budget for the first study.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just to be clear, if there is a need to increase the budget then we'll have to come back with supplementary...but this is a good first shot and it's on the floor.
Any other comments before we move it?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
It's flexible in the sense that you put down people saying yes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes. If we get to a point where we need more then we'll bring it forward to the committee.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That was awesome. Let's hope this keeps going.
The next thing is the subcommittee report. We met on Tuesday, and I just want to see if anybody has a problem. Any discussion on it? Do you all have this? It's the first report of our subcommittee that we have to adopt to allow us to do what we're going to do next Tuesday.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It was good discussion in the subcommittee. We talked about all the different balls we are trying to juggle, and even a motion from me that is being addressed on Tuesday, when we come back.
The only comment I would make to that is trying to [Technical difficulty--Editor].
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I sent it out last night. I'm sorry, we were in caucus all yesterday, so I didn't have a chance to respond until later in the night. I apologize for the delay.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The only reason we moved this motion was because we had the “two sleeps” rule going on. We wanted to get—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Anyway, we had originally constructed a motion and sent it to the chair. We've since revised that this morning to try to incorporate the helpful comments from the chair and the reading of the blues from our meeting when we first discussed this.
We're just trying to get something down at some point to be able to move forward. It hopefully coincides with the February letter that the environment commissioner sent to us. There were some things she recommended that the committee undertake: climate change, sustainable development strategy, pesticides safety, and some other things that we're not addressing yet, but maybe we'll get to later.
My point, Chair, is that we reordered the motion that we had originally in terms of dates and allocations. That's what we're submitting and talking about on Tuesday.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Correct.
The whole committee gets these motions when they get sent around and I don't want there to be any confusion. What the chair sent forward to us was helpful and so we've reorganized this to deal with the sustainable development as well as getting to climate change and clean technology before we wrap up for the summertime.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll be having that discussion on Tuesday in our subcommittee meeting.
What was to come forward and hasn't come yet, and I'm hoping that you will be giving it to us soon, is the witnesses you'd like to have us bring forward on the 22nd. I haven't seen any response from anyone. It's the one that we're doing on the 22nd, the federal sustainable development strategy. We want to hear from you. I can pick some, but I wanted to hear from you so that we can have that ready for the Tuesday meeting.
Then the subcommittee is after that. Hopefully by that time all of you will have given me a prioritized witness list that you'd like to hear on the four different issues that we are considering for this committee at least identified so far.
Once we have that, I'm hoping on the 22nd we'll have a lot more information to be able to figure out how we will undertake our work in the next couple of months.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think it would be good to invite the environment commissioner to come in and speak about the Federal Sustainable Development Act and her side of it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You're saying that you want her as a witness? Okay that's fine.
Mr. Fast.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I must say I'm somewhat confused. We settled upon two studies that we would do concurrently, and then we would do the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and then we would do the one on clean technology, clean energy, etc. Is that right?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes. We had ordered them, and two were going concurrently. Is that right?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes. I don't want to get into all of the discussions that I think we're going to end up getting into at the subcommittee—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Except there is before us a first report, which says the committee agreed—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
—to have the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which essentially conflicts with the ordering we had established. In fact it conflicts with the draft press release, which is shown right here.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We have a proposed approach for ourselves, separate from anything that may come and be referred to us. There will be things referred to us, such as budgets, other studies, and other issues that come up. If we say we will not entertain anything else then I don't think that's the right approach either. Again, we can discuss this on...
We are separate, but we also get things referred to the committee. I think we need to be open to discussing those and see how the committee may want to deal with those things that get referred to us. We have been asked, which was not in the picture when we set up our proposal in terms of priorities. It wasn't sent to us for review. It has since been sent to us for review—