Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Again, as I said at the outset, on the scheduling of witnesses and that kind of detail, we are happy to have that done in the steering committee, but on which studies go forward and what we're going to look at, we have an interest as a whole committee in discussing it. We feel that that should be done in public, with transparency, so that the Canadian people know what we're studying and why we're doing it. Then, of course, in the steering committee, the details of the scheduling, the scheduling of witnesses and the time these things are going to take can all be worked out in the smaller group.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

To go back to the item of efficiency, from my experience in the last Parliament, it worked very well to have future business in camera with a smaller group. We have a calendar in front of us to take us to the end of June in the short term, and then throughout the rest of 2020, when we will have things like supplementaries and mains that will be coming forward. We have some predictability about when those things could happen. There will be deadlines attached to them. As a committee member, I'd like to see the subcommittee come up with a tentative calendar that we could then discuss as a committee, to see whether everybody is in agreement.

If we have eight motions.... Two of those motions are mine and I'd love to see how those could be put into the priorities. One of them includes the circular economy, which is something that I'm very interested in because of my community work. Also, I have another motion to wrap up some of the unfinished work from the last Parliament around the pan-Canadian framework. There were some sections on electricity, transportation and industry that weren't studied in the pan-Canadian framework by the last committee. I'd like to see us try to finish them so that we'd have a complete analysis of the pan-Canadian framework.

I think what we're doing right now shows why it's important to be in subcommittee, because we could be talking about all of these things for the rest of this meeting and then some and not come to a consensus or an agreement. The supplementaries and the mains are two pieces of particular interest that I think we'd like to see. Do they get combined because of the timing of this Parliament? As well, what is the timing for the mains coming forward?

I think the subcommittee could address these things and come back with a calendar so that we can make some sense of the calendar as proposed and in terms of input from the clerk as well. Then we'd know how many blocks of time we have available to us and how we get the witnesses in, and then, yes, the subcommittee can help with witnesses and things like that. I would like to see the subcommittee do some work, give us a proposal and give us a calendar at least to the end of June, so that we have something we can agree on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Schiefke.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I just want to emphasize that I think a lot of great motions have been put forward, and I know that they were drawn up with a good amount of passion behind those issues. Perhaps the member is expressing a desire to speak to that publicly in the committee and share why that motion is being put forward. I don't think anybody here is opposed to that. What we would like to see happen, though, is that following everybody perhaps being given a chance to speak to the motions they're presenting, that work then falls to the subcommittee.

For those who have sat on committees before, you know that this goes by very quickly. We will wake up one morning and we're going to be in June and we're going to wish that we had had more time to do good work in the committee. The more work we can give to the subcommittee and they can take off our plate and the more time we can give to witnesses the better.

If there is a desire to have an opportunity to speak to the motion that a person is presenting, I think that perhaps we can use the time today that we have. We can get that out of the way and then it can go to subcommittee. Or, if the opposition members or even members on our side here are amenable, maybe we actually can put aside time at a future meeting to allow people to present their motion, but knowing that then it will go to the subcommittee to figure out exactly where that's going to fall in the schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madam Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I have a point of clarification, Madam Chair. Would the steering committee be meeting at the same time as the regular committee or outside of that time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It would be outside of this time.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

We wouldn't be taking any time away from the committee in the steering committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

No.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Longfield has really spoken to my point. I made a point in my motion of not speaking to the merits of the various motions, and yet he spoke to the merits of why he wanted to see his two motions go ahead. That's exactly what we're talking about.

There are people who propose these motions—every party represented here has put forward motions—and there's a desire to speak to those motions in full committee as to why they think those should have priority. We have eight suggestions for what we should be talking about. With respect, a couple of them are fairly narrow, but the motions put forward by my friends across the table and by us tend to be quite general. Maybe they even could be merged somewhat. If we have a conversation among all those in committee as to why we see these as important, I think it would inform the steering committee as to how to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madam Findlay, just for clarification purposes, motions can be presented to the committee at large in public, and people who have presented the motion or have proposed a motion have an opportunity in public to defend their motion or say, “You know what, I would like to merge two motions” and it's a collaborative effort. That will not be denied. That will not be done at subcommittee. It will be done here and we have time to do it if someone so wishes. If someone proposes their first motion and says, “you know, I would like to present that motion”, there is no issue with that.

However, what we are saying is that once you have presented your motion, we have to take the whole thing back to subcommittee or steering committee. We have only 22 meetings left. If, in those 22 meetings, we take committee time to discuss this, which is going to take a lot of our time, then we are actually wasting the opportunity given to us to do good work, and there are so many good motions. So, if anyone wants to present their motion, we can keep time for that on Thursday. On that day we have Parks Canada coming in. We can set aside maybe half an hour for everybody to discuss their motions, and those motions will go to subcommittee or steering committee and then we can discuss and schedule.

Madam Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Is there an opportunity to have our subcommittee discussion not in camera if we want to have transparency around our discussions about how we're scheduling the different motions and studies that we put forward? Is there an opportunity to meet the needs of efficiency and to use time outside of this committee but also meet the needs of transparency by having those discussions open to the public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We can do both. We can do either public or in camera. Sometimes it is very critical that we do it in camera to protect our own interests actually, because whenever we do it in public and it is either televised or reported, there are things that can be managed properly and things that cannot be managed. So, yes, we can do public and we can do in camera. It is up to us.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It seems like the scheduling of studies is something that doesn't have a lot of risk around privacy or doesn't have to do with contracts. It seems like something that would very easily be done not in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It depends.

Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of whether motions can be studied in subcommittee or in committee, my experience with unions, coalitions and the education system is that subcommittees study proposals summarily. The committee's decisions might differ, but the preliminary analysis was more efficient.

I agree that efficiency comes first. The members of the government party and the members of the official opposition sitting on the subcommittee represent their party members to an extent. In that sense, they must have a clear idea of what the people in their party want. For my part, what I have experienced in the past had to do with efficiency. So that's the side I'm going to take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madam Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

We're content with the idea that on Thursday people will have an opportunity in full committee to speak to their motions and the reasons they would like those motions to be heard or prioritized, and then the scheduling of that can go to steering committee.

Our main point here is that we would like some open and public discussion, for transparency reasons, on why these motions should be given consideration and prioritized clearly. Mr. Longfield has spoken to two of his motions already and his motions would take up all the time we have for the rest of the year. One of them involves 18 meetings, so we have some concerns about that, particularly when most of us here are new members and therefore what happened in the last Parliament is really of reduced relevance to us when we have the opportunity to get into some new subjects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

That's why a steering committee is extremely important. You could put down that you want eight meetings or 16 meetings. A steering committee pares it down. It demands: Who are the witnesses? How many times will we go through this circular motion? It is important that the steering committee takes this administrative burden out of the committee and ensures that the committee works effectively and efficiently for the studies rather than waste time on administrative matters.

There are eight motions in play. If we could give each proponent of the motion at least five minutes maximum so that we do not go over the time limit, it would be appreciated. If that's what we can all agree on as adults, then I'll be fine.

Mr. Scarpaleggia

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

If I understand correctly, the idea is to devote part of Thursday's meeting to introducing the motions we have here, but there would be no debate. It would just be a presentation. If we debate each motion, it could go until June.

I am entirely in favour of members spending one hour or 45 minutes introducing motions, but I would ask that the subcommittee meet before Thursday, because it may need to make some quick decisions, such as whether to invite the minister or to discuss supplementary estimates, and so on. It would be worthwhile to have a meeting of the subcommittee. That does not tie our hands in any way. On Thursday, we will be able to spend 45 minutes hearing members introduce their motions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia, for your suggestion, but I think we have.... To come to a consensus, we have agreed that everyone will present their motion and why it needs to be studied. Then we'll take that and probably hold a Monday steering committee meeting, and say, “Here are the pros and cons of that study. Can we as a steering committee make a proposal as to which ones can probably be combined, as there may be things that are overlapping?”

I think that would be easily digestible by all. Correct? Yes—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But do we know what we're doing the Tuesday when we come back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We will.

Oh, the Tuesday....

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What I'm saying, Madam Chair, is that if we don't have a meeting this week, we won't be able to plan for the Tuesday when we get back. That will be a lost meeting.