Environment Committee on May 5th, 2021

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

I don't have the wording for the new amendment proposed by Mr. Saini, but in the initial version, it was not stipulated that the meeting was three hours. I think it was in the second version. It's fine with me. In the first version, it said “up to three meetings”. If I understand correctly, the “up to” is gone. Now it's formally three meetings. If I got that right, I agree with the amendment. I think we need climate legislation. The climate emergency is serious. It's all we hear about. That's why I agree with Mr. Saini.

I think it's worth pointing out that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that “the committee issue a press release inviting stakeholder to submit briefs to the committee”. I want you to know that a number of stakeholders are ready. I believe they have already written their briefs. Similar to motion M-34, which you put forward, Mr. Chair, we could instruct the analysts to put together a summary analysis of the briefs that come in. I think that might be a solution.

I have one last thing to say. With the break week coming up, I think we should be mindful of the staff who support us. We should think about how this will affect them and consider making changes as needed. I'm sure there are others with better ideas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll keep it brief. My understanding, as Madame Pauzé mentioned, is that we're actually adding an hour of time to work on this bill, rather than losing any time. Canadians have made it very clear to us, as have stakeholders, that this is a vitally important bill that is both timely and very much needed.

I think the goodwill of the committee and the commitment that we all have towards moving forward on addressing these matters and having Canadians know that we are addressing these needs make this wholly appropriate at this time.

Thank you for making the motion, Mr. Saini.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp is next.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think, for precisely that reason, that we don't want to ram this through. It is important. It's important that this be studied properly, that we have the correct witnesses who want to speak to it come, that we allow people the opportunity to speak to it, that we allow the documents to be translated properly into the French language or the English language, as the case may be. These are all considerations that take time.

We have to also consider that nine hours of committee meetings in one week is a very significant amount of time. The House resources are already stretched to the limit when it comes specifically to translation, but also many other things. I think this is going to be very difficult to fit and squeeze in. I think we need to go back and make sure, before we approve this, that the House can actually accommodate this request, because it's quite a change from where we are now. It also requires us to meet in a constituency week, which will require juggling of schedules and things like that.

As we said, this is a very important issue and we want to make sure we give it the due process, the due time and the due diligence that it needs. I've spoken to witnesses who want to speak to this matter. It's a little hard for me to understand because I don't have the whole motion in front of me, but my understanding is that we have just a few weeks to get those witnesses and get everything all ready and translated, which, to me, just isn't enough time.

I would really like to see that we consider sticking with the original schedule, just for pure practical reasons, because I'm not sure we can accomplish what Mr. Saini has proposed.

Those are my thoughts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

I'd just like to ask the clerk to see if this can be accommodated. Are those times even available?

Also, is there any risk of overworking staff? I do know we've been having issues with making sure we have French translation and English translation so that we are able to do all this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madam Clerk, would you comment?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

Yes, the House proposes a schedule for committee meetings during non-sitting weeks. It's on a first-come, first-served basis. They limit the number of committees that can meet. I've made some inquiries, obviously. We are on the priority list to be able to sit during that time in the break week for those days.

I can't speak to the other services, but as the clerk, I serve the committee. If the committee decides it wants to sit, then I will certainly be available to sit during that time. If the House has provided a schedule for committees to sit, they have approached services, I expect, to make sure they are able to provide the service as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, so—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Just on that point, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Wouldn't it be prudent for us to actually see if there's the technical capacity to be able to do what the government has asked?

Again, if those times are not available or if somebody else has already chosen those times, then to me it would make us all look bad to have to come back and then redo this whole schedule yet again. I'm not sure if we should just simply defer until the next meeting when we can continue this and understand whether we'd have the capacity to do it or not, Mr. Chair. I understand there are some members who are very devoted to having this go forward, but by the same token I think reasonable minds would agree we should actually be able to see if we can do a thing before we debate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Even when we have our regular meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays, there are always imponderables.

Anyway, I don't see any other speakers.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, just to allay Mr. Albas's concerns, there's only one other committee on the list to sit during that week, so we would definitely have priority. If the committee decided to sit, I'm pretty sure it could sit. It's up to the committee to decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What do we do now? We have no more speakers. We have—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask the clerk about this yet again here.

Are you saying those times are available? It is a break week.

[The Clerk]

Yes, to my knowledge they are available. I made a request to find out what the schedule was and was told that the schedule would be presented to the whips.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

At this point it's tentative, but it's the same as previous break weeks. I have no expectation that we wouldn't be granted permission.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

What would be the impacts, though, to the witnesses? As I've said earlier, this would tighten it up dramatically. We had talked about suggesting to people to also send briefs that we could look at. What is the capacity on that, in terms of being able to translate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Obviously, it would be moving everything up one week.

[The Clerk]

If I might, obviously this has been on people's radar for a long time, so the committee has received a number of requests to appear. No one has been approached yet. I'm sure the analysts are working on a list of the people who wish to appear. We've already received a number of briefs, which have been translated and will be distributed to the committee, probably tomorrow. Obviously, more briefs will come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

Remember, the first meeting would be basically the departmental officials. They're always ready, I guess.

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We are in an 11-week stretch right now with one week, so-called, in the ridings and available. I guess I just wonder. I do know the importance of moving this legislation forward, that people are keen on it, but could we not...? I've always been very protective of the constituency week. Obviously for emergencies and when we had significant challenges in terms of our ability to move about, it was one thing. We have 11 sitting weeks. We have one break week. I hope to be protective. I'm probably like everyone else here. I have a fully scheduled break week already.

Again, if it's not necessary, which I'm not sure it is.... I haven't been convinced it is. I know the subcommittee indicated it was very comfortable with the previous plan. I guess my question is, why is it essential on a break week, the one week we have out of 11 weeks, to have this kind of scheduling?