Environment Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses being here this morning and the plethora of information we have before us. I just want to read from the background material that was provided to us in preparation for this. It says that the main estimates:

...are usually tabled, along with the overall government expense plan, on or before 1 March. However, because of the election on 27 January 2006, the 2006-2007 Main Estimates were not tabled until 25 April 2006. However, at the time, the Treasury Board Secretariat stated that “The 2006-2007 Main Estimates reflect decisions taken by the previous government rather than the current government.”

And I think that's the salient point. So the decisions taken in the main estimates that we're talking about are from the previous government.

It goes on to say that this government’s decisions will be announced in Budget 2006 and will be reflected in the supplementary estimates to be tabled in the fall, which were just tabled and which we aren't discussing today.

Dealing with the main estimates, I'd ask you to turn to page 8-5, about halfway down the page, where we're looking at “Reduced Greenhouse Gas emissions”. If you look to the far right of the page, under “2005-2006 Main Estimates”, there was $53 million in last year's main estimates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in this main estimate, which was from the previous government, they have zero dollars for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, from $53 million down to zero.

The next line down has “Improved air quality”; there was $103 million, and in these main estimates, which are from the previous government, there's zero again. Then the next line down is “Reduced risk from toxics and other substances of concern”. There was $192 million in the previous 2006 main estimates, and then for this budget that we're dealing with, the main estimates for this year, it was again reduced down to zero. So we see a trend.

The next one, “Biological diversity is conserved”, was reduced from $117 million to zero. On the next line down, “Clean, safe and secure water for people and ecosystems”, $65 million was reduced to zero. The next line down has “Priority ecosystems are conserved and restored”, and $55 million was reduced to zero. The next line down has “Reduced Impact of Weather and Related Hazards”, and it shows $155 million reduced to zero. Then there's “Adaptation to Environmental Changes”, $92 million reduced to zero.

My question is why? We've heard over and over again from the opposition themselves that these are all issues of high priority to the previous government, to the opposition, particularly to Canadians, and absolutely for this present government. But as I pointed out, the salient point is what we're talking about, the main estimates, were from the previous government. So why would we on one hand say these are important issues and yet reduce millions and millions of dollars from the main estimates?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could I ask for a one-minute answer, please?

[Basia Ruta]

Yes, I'd be very happy to. Thank you very much for raising this question.

If you turn to page 8-5 in the main estimates, this relates to the first comment I made in the opening remarks, that we did change our program activity architecture. I know that's technical. What that means is that how we define our results was changed. That is why you see that there's nothing in there on the bottom, from reduced greenhouse gas emissions to adaptation, as you listed; there are no investments. However, there's a new activity architecture on the first nine categories that are presented in the main estimates. So what you would have if you turn to the report on plans and priorities on page 10, to the crosswalk...there you could see where the moneys have been aligned. For what would have been categorized under reduced greenhouse gas emissions, you have some...I think it's in the order of $18.5 million in net emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced. It's just a different way of defining it. If you like, we would be happy to provide you with a copy of that crosswalk and further information to explain that mapping.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

But the bottom line is that there was a major reduction in the budgets between the previous year and this main estimate.

[Basia Ruta]

I think it's like Mr. Mokhtar has said. We had a number of programs in, let's say, climate change and other areas that were sunsetting, for which they were to get further priority established this fiscal year under the previous government. The current government is looking at setting priorities, so we'll see what will happen in terms of funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

I would like to thank our guests. I trust that you will get back to us with the various items raised by the members. Thank you very much.

We'll now go back to business.

In starting, I would like the members to know that the committee will end at eleven o'clock. The status of women committee is here at eleven o'clock. So I'd just advise everyone of that.

Also, in terms of dealing with the point of order raised earlier regarding Tuesday, October 17, Mr. Rodriguez' motion, I've checked with the clerk and with the head clerk, and I was incorrect in accepting that motion in that there wasn't 24 hours' notice, French and English, sent to all the members. However, that really becomes moot at this point because we have a new motion--just to put that to an end, just so the members know that.

Also, Mr. Cullen has requested a moment to ask for a unanimous motion. This would have to be agreed to by everyone.

Very briefly, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What I'm seeking is to move my motion--which has since been changed slightly--up to the front of the order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, and the reason it went to the back was because of an amendment. It was first in the order because it was from the last meeting, and it did move, because, as you know, as they come in to the clerk, that's the order in which they appear. So Mr. Cullen's was first but was amended.

What are the members' wishes on that?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of cooperation, I would accept that Mr. Cullen's motion be dealt with first. I think we can deal with it very quickly. Basically, it's an invitation to the minister to come and speak, which I think is a priority for the committee too. So I'm in favour of dealing with it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, do you have a comment?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Unless we were to refrain from debating it and move simply to a vote, I would be opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

It has to be unanimous.

The motion was to put Mr. Cullen's motion to be discussed now, at the front of the order. So we then go to—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I would ask for a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will have a recorded vote. This is on consent to Mr. Cullen's request.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Can we know exactly what motion is to be voted upon please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We do not have consent.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

What's the point of the vote if there's no consent?

[An hon. member]

I thought there was consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, there was not consent. Mr. Rodriguez did not consent.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So do we have a vote or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We do not have a vote.

[A voice]

There is no need for a vote if there is no consent.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a serious concern. It's a sincere concern. It's not meant to be in the nature of a filibuster, but I do think we need to clarify the issue of the 24 hours.

I don't know whether in fact either of these—any of these, for that matter—came in an actual 24 hours. I understand there is some precedent in respect of the chamber. Committees are masters of their own destiny, and it does make the point that having these motions placed before a committee with this advance notice type of thing is so that we don't receive them without warning.

I think we do well to consider the fact of possibly moving to a 48-hour notice. But with this issue of it coming in the door just prior to six o'clock, suppertime, or whatever, and that being regarded as 24 hours, I think in the absence of an explanation to say that we have it understood in that manner, we should be viewing it as an actual 24-hour notice. The clerk, for that matter, should also have a paper trail--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would suggest, Mr. Vellacott, that this can be put as a motion. We can vote on it. The rules are, as I understand them from the clerk, that motions are received by six o'clock in order of priority. So if one is received at eleven o'clock, it's first. Another at two o'clock would be second, and so on. We have one night's sleep and then it's a legitimate motion to come before the committee the next day.

In reality, that's not 24 hours, but that's the way the rule works. That's what the journals use. We could accept a motion that could be submitted, circulated, and voted on at a future meeting regarding changing the 24 hours to two sleeps, 48 hours, or whatever the committee wants. We could do that at a future date.