Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clause 9 deals with reporting. I think everybody would agree, Mr. Chairman, that regular reporting to Parliament is essential; however, there are many technical barriers to reporting expected emission reductions on a year-by-year basis. For example, complete emission data is not available usually until 18 months after the end of any given year. So the focus of reporting should be on the accountability of meeting the objectives of this bill, and not simply reporting just for the sake of reporting.

Again, I would hearken back to what my colleagues have been talking about all morning. The government does have a proposed legislative plan that provides a more comprehensive and a more tailored set of authorities in reporting relevant performance information regarding air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The reporting targets in this bill are as bad as the emission targets set out by the previous government. We've had people who have testified in front of this committee—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe my colleague is already debating clause 10, which deals with reports, even though we are still on clause 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We are on clause 9, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm aware of that, Mr. Chairman. But we're talking about getting information into the Gazette, and we're talking about the obligations of the minister. I think it's completely relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Carry on, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The reality is that we've had people who have testified in front of the committee. When I asked a question, I think it was Mr. Sauchyn who said setting unachievable goals was as bad a self-fulfilling prophecy as setting other goals that are too far in the distance. I believe it's the juxtaposition that was before the committee at the time. We're now setting goals in this particular clause that are only for the sake of setting goals and have no relevance.

I would only like to say that the government's proposals are new, and we're going in a different direction. We'll tackle the problem head on.

I would suggest that my colleagues and I will be voting no on this particular clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I catch the argument. The suggestion is that these are unreasonable goals. The actual text of subclause 9(1) says “the greenhouse gas emission reductions that are reasonably expected to result for each year up to and including 2012”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I was going to say I don't, by the logic of my member opposite.... There have been various ones. Your own party, and so on, have said that the kinds of things you guys are talking about are just so much blah, blah, blah. I think that in terms of some of the targets set here, you also have the very same kind of thing. My suggestion to you is that it's a lot more blah, blah, blah from the party. As Mr. Ignatieff said, I think Canadians would be very disappointed if this were the best that we could do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on clause 9?

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 10—Review of Climate Change Plan and Minister’s statement)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On clause 10, as you can see, we have an amendment from Mr. Rodriguez.

Could you please address the amendment to clause 10, on page 24, Mr. Rodriguez?

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

Of course, Mr. Chairman. The Auditor General had concerns and wondered whether the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development could really do what the initial bill was asking her to do. Just to respond to those concerns and so that she feels comfortable with the bill as a whole, we are simply asking the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to do what we were originally asking of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It's a very simple amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Are there any comments on the amendment to clause 10?

Mr. Cullen.

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

I'm trying to understand the reporting components of this, and perhaps Mr. Rodriguez can clarify it. What is the difference in lag time between when the actual numbers come out on where our emissions are and when this bill calls for those emissions to be brought to Parliament?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Did you hear the question, Mr. Rodriguez?

Could you please repeat it, Mr. Cullen?

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

One of the struggles we've had with tracking government plans and spending is that there's a two-year or so delay within what the actual missions were and what we're dealing with in the present time. I understand the purposes of getting it away from the Commissioner of the Environment, and we're in agreement with that. But in terms of the reporting and the ability to act upon that reporting, if it takes two years at any given time in terms of delay--a two-year delay to get it back--if this bill is attempting to change that or alter the way....

There's the accountability component. I'm trying to understand what the government's plans are, reporting back on what the effectiveness of those plans are, but we have a two-year lag--a minimum of a year and a half, but most likely two years at all times. How does the bill account for that lag in the Minister of the Environment then setting out new targets, if those targets are based upon reports that come from two years ago?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, can you clarify that for Mr. Cullen?

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

We're talking about two separate things, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment and this specific part deal with the fact that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy — rather than the Auditor General — should be conducting an assessment and analysis of the government plan to determine whether it is realistic, achievable and will achieve the targets that have been set. This is done within 30 days of the release by the minister of a statement under subsection 9(2). So, that is quite clear. Working proactively, she looks at it immediately and ascertains whether the plan is realistic or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

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

So this is as much just an analysis of the capacity of the plan to meet the stated objectives.

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

Yes.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be supporting this amendment, but I have to say that I am concerned about the fact that it won't be the Auditor General performing this work. The fact is we know full well that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy often receives mandates from the government. I'm not saying that the National Round Table is not operating at arm's length from the government, but I certainly would have preferred to see the work performed by the Auditor General, who reports to Parliament and whose mandate is to provide independent analysis of what has been proposed by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

It's important to remember that the National Round Table was established by the government, that its members are appointed by the government, and that the government often gives a specific mandate to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I will still be supporting my colleague's amendment, but I would have preferred that the person responsible for making the reports be someone more independent.