Evidence of meeting #11 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
I don’t know whether the member who moved the motion intends to change those words.
Mr. Martin, what are your thoughts?
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
No, I think the whole point is to draw attention to the undeniable link between climate change and the increased incidence of natural disasters across the country, which have added up to billions and billions of dollars. We have an unfunded liability looming. We don't know when the next one is going to strike, but any kind of forecasting or estimates process or budgeting is out the window if we keep getting hit with these epic events.
Now, I'd like more explanation from the government as to why they wouldn't support commissioning the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is sitting there with the resources and the ability to undertake such a study. Why are we afraid to simply ask him to undertake this study? The advantage of the committee doing it is that then we can call him in to report to the committee on that subject. Any individual could, I suppose, ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine this, but it goes on to the long list of other requests. When a parliamentary committee directs the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do it, it has more weight, and it would go up on the priority list, and it would be done, I think, in a reasonable period of time.
This is information we need to know. We're negligent if we're not planning for climate change events, these natural disasters directly linked to climate change. Other developed nations are folding this into their planning and priorities and estimates process. We don't have any of the groundwork or baseline research done to be able to accommodate this legitimate concern.
I would like the members on the government side to explain to me why they wouldn't want the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine climate change.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Martin.
To answer Mr. Byrne's earlier question about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, I have been advised that a report entitled “Mitigating Climate Change” is supposed to be tabled in the fall of 2014. Perhaps that answers your previous question.
Mrs. Day, go ahead.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to respond to what Mr. O’Connor said.
There is a cause and effect reaction between climate change and the impact of the warming of our planet. The ice melts and the water level goes up. Our environment will be more humid and more hurricanes will form. There is no denying it, it is all related.
Countries that have had tsunamis cannot afford not to base their future spending estimates on tsunamis that may potentially occur in 20, 30 or 50 years. In our own estimates, we cannot overlook the possibility that what happened in Alberta last year can happen again. That was last summer, I think. We can make forecasts, because, once temperatures vary, there will be climate changes and disasters will occur. We know that the water level will go up. We will then make regulations so that people do not live along shorelines where the water level may well increase, and so on. It is all related.
I think undertaking such a study is appropriate. It is appropriate for all government institutions to carry out a study that will enable us to manage public finances more effectively in the event of disasters and to ensure that we are not taken by surprise when disaster strikes. We will be able to plan for it.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
9:55 a.m.
Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
If I may, I'll go into my fundamental problem. My fundamental problem is that what we're talking about essentially is weather, not climate. Climate is a trend over a long term. Right now, you may not notice it, but we have the polar vortex out there. We have snowstorms everywhere. We don't exactly have tropical forests growing up in the Arctic. We have the opposite problem right now. If I followed the logic of some people that it's primarily human activity, well, primarily human activity, according to them, should be creating heat everywhere, but we have the opposite situation, and the planet has not heated up for 15 years.
Our worry in Canada is cold. We can live with a warmer climate in Canada. We can't live with a colder climate, because the ice sheets start to move down on us. The Antarctic ice sheet, for example, is expanding; it's not contracting. We've had cases where the Arctic ice sheet has retracted and now it has expanded again. These are weather issues.
It comes back to the fundamental thing I'm talking about. If we're talking about getting a study on how to deal with natural disasters, that's one thing, but tying it into climate change, which are a couple of fuzzy words that don't really mean anything, that's my problem.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you for your comments.
Let’s continue debating the motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Martin.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I can't let those comments go unchallenged.
Global warming is not a weather event. You don't listen to Johanna Wagstaffe to get a prediction on global warming.
The natural disasters that we're suggesting should be studied, or their increased incidence, are directly related to climate change. As you do the research and learn about climate change, it's not just about warming temperatures, it's about more extreme events at both ends of the spectrum. The increased incidence of natural disasters, whether it's floods or the ocean warming or the rising sea levels, etc., are consequences of climate change caused by humans.
The reason our country keeps winning the dinosaur award at every environmental conference around the world is that we're still having this debate when the rest of the world has moved on. But we, as an oversight committee for planning and priorities and estimates, surely want to be able to recommend to government that they better have some way to fund this liability. Currently an unfunded liability that's looming over our heads is like a sword of Damocles, because every time you try to balance the budget, if you have a $6 billion flood in Calgary, there goes your balanced budget.
This is predictable. This is scientifically based. It's irresponsible of us not to be dealing with this at the very committee where we're supposed to be forward looking about anticipated costs, budgets, and spending. This is the committee that should be dealing with it. We should be getting information from other committees perhaps, but we should be recommending that the government has this contingency, not just the costs, but being involved at the root of the problem as well. This committee should be recommending that this government shouldn't be engaged in any activity that may be exacerbating the climate change emergency that the globe is facing.
Global warming is not a weather-related issue. You don't look at the 11 o'clock news to deal with global warming. You take your head out of the sand and deal with it.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you.
I don’t want us to start a debate on climate change. We must stick to the content of the motion, which asks that the PBO undertake a study. We can play with the wording of the motion, but we must stick to the topic being debated.
Mr. O’Connor, the floor is yours.
10 a.m.
Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
I want to go back to Mr. Martin.
First of all, there have been no sea level increases. You'll have to tell me where they are because it hasn't happened. Hurricanes are not occurring at the same rate they used to be. Hurricanes have been quiet for years. You have to go looking around the planet. You have to pick and choose what you want.
I'm not going to argue that things don't change. We go from hot to cold, etc., but we have to develop national plans to deal with these things and expect to pay bills every year. We should always have a fund ready to pay bills because it's going to happen. We have a large country, a continental country, that will have all the various weather forecasts, but to say there's an inalienable link to what you call climate change, I don't agree.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
I repeat that I don’t want us to start a scientific debate today.
Mr. Aspin, go ahead.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Chair, my problem is unpredictability. Mr. Martin says it's predictable. I don't think it is predictable. I don't even know if it's directly relatable. It's like asking the federal government to plan its budget according to next year's weather. Who knows next year's weather? Sometimes we don't even know what this weekend's weather will be. In economic action plan 2014, we have a $3 billion contingency fund. It's not directly related to any one incident. It's the fact that we've had three disastrous incidents this year. We can't be specific. We can lay out some funds.
My problem is the unpredictability. It's like contemplating your navel. It's virtually impossible.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you.
I think we are ready to vote on the motion.
Do we have unanimous consent to adopt the motion?
10 a.m.
NDP
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I think this is such a fundamental issue that there should be a recorded vote on a subject like this.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Okay.
I will ask the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote on the motion that Mr. Martin read a few minutes ago.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
The motion is defeated.
(Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 3; Nays, 6)
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Would you like to suggest any other topics for consideration?
Mr. Trottier, go ahead.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I think we have a good plan of attack for the next three months at least. I'd like to move that we adjourn, bearing in mind we'll have further discussions about witnesses and dates on the Tuesday when we resume.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
The motion is not debatable, but we really must talk about an access to information request that was made. We usually talk about something like that in camera. We have until February 21 to discuss it.
I will let the clerk explain the situation.
10:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Would you like to move in camera?
10:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The committee has received an access to information request from the Public Service Commission. The committee must reply by February 21. Originally, the commission received a request for it to provide all the documents that it had prepared for its appearance before you last December 10. The commission appeared at that time to present its annual report and other audit reports.
The reason why I bring this to the committee today is that, last autumn, the House adopted new rules for handling these kinds of requests, and for the way they are handled by parliamentary committees.
I examined the documentation that involved the committee. Essentially, it comes down to a routine exchange of emails between the clerk and the Public Service Commission’s person responsible for parliamentary affairs, about the date of the appearance and confirming that they were going to appear. So my recommendation to the committee was to authorize me to publish the documentation and make it available. As I said, it is a routine exchange of emails between the clerk and the parliamentary affairs officer at the Public Service Commission.
Under the new rules passed by the House last fall, we are required to consult the committee and seek its approval on the matter.