Evidence of meeting #113 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Do you think that's important? Do we have any additional drafting instructions for the analysts to help them with the report on the freshwater study this summer? If not, it leaves us time for another topic in the second hour of the meeting.
We'll go to Ms. Pauzé, and then to Mr. Longfield.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm not sure it's necessary. In the beginning, the analysts gave us a table with different themes. I imagine that's what they will use.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
We could take the second hour off. Just joking. Is it too late to have a panel of witnesses for the study on sustainable finance? It could also be the advisory group.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
A year ago, I asked that the committee hear from the advisory group, but that never happened.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Excuse me, but Ms. Taylor Roy and Mr. Longfield also want to speak.
If I could do a little summary here, I think the first hour is taken care of.
The question now is, what do we do in the second hour? Madame Pauzé is saying that we don't really need to give drafting instructions; it's pretty clear. She would like to continue with the finance study. Mr. Longfield had proposed drafting instructions.
We'll go to Ms. Taylor-Roy, and then Mr. Longfield.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
First, I propose that this be discussed by the subcommittee, not by the entire committee.
Second, I think that wrapping up what we've been doing, which is the freshwater study.... I understand that we had things laid out at the beginning, but we added witnesses, we did different things and a lot of things came up during the study. I do think it's been a very lengthy study and investment of this committee. Wrapping that up at the end of this session is probably a good idea, rather than beginning another study.
I still believe this should be a subcommittee meeting, not a committee meeting.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I was going to say that if we run out the clock today, and it looks like that's what the intention of this meeting is, at least for drafting instructions we could start with the outline that we started with. I think that gives us a very good basis to start doing the work on the report.
If the other members don't want to add anything to that, because of not wanting to look at drafting instructions, I think at least it's fair to the analyst to work with the initial outline that we gave them.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, but what are we doing now? We have one proposal from Madame Pauzé. Do we try to do an extra hour on the finance study? Is it drafting instructions?
7 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
What if I offered a compromise between the two by adding a third option?
Given that the net-zero accelerator fund is funded through the main estimates, what if we brought in ISED officials alongside ECCC for the first hour, and the second hour is to do drafting instructions?
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Conservative
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It seems that this side would rather discuss the water report.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
That takes care of the first hour of the meeting. In the second hour, we will discuss the water report. Our two-hour meeting would then be complete. That's what I propose.
Is everyone good? Do we have UC?
7 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.