Evidence of meeting #62 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Before we go further, I'm going to make sure the clerk has the motion. I'm going to ask him to read it back as best he can.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
No, the list is to make suggestions to the steering committee. And the steering committee can obviously propose who it wants to the full committee. And hopefully we won't have another debate here about that, but we'll have to wait and see how that goes.
The steering committee is made up of the chair, Mr. Warawa, Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Bigras, and Mr. Cullen.
I'm going to ask the clerk to read the motion.
Mr. Warawa, I want to make sure you hear this, so you can check to see whether this is the right wording.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Justin Vaive
The motion of Mr. Warawa is that by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, suggestions for witnesses on Bill C-377 be provided to the clerk in advance of the steering committee meeting on Wednesday, June 6.
Liberal
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is there anything else? Is there any further business to discuss in relation to the study of Bill C-377? I don't think so.
We can go on to the next item, which is the notice of motion from Mr. McGuinty, to which I'm guessing he may wish to speak, but I'm only guessing.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be mercifully brief.
This motion flows from the meeting of Tuesday of this week, Mr. Chair and colleagues, where we had an opportunity to ask the minister about estimates. Upon reviewing the minister's testimony, I'd just like to review for committee colleagues what we heard, for example, with respect to spending in 2007-08.
This is what the testimony indicated, from the minister's mouth: $88 million through clean energy; a clean regulatory agenda on which we're spending $68 million; ecoENERGY measures in support of the clean air agenda on which we're spending, apparently, $145 million; clean transportation, the transit pass tax credit, upon which we're spending $220 million—I don't know how it's possible, for example, Mr. Chair, to know what the transit pass tax credit is actually going to cost us; ecoTransportation measures in support of a clean air agenda from prior to the budget 2007, on which we're spending $20 million.
That comes to a total of $541 million, according to my numbers. Yet the number we were given in total sum was I think also in testimony, something around $844 million, $845 million. To my calculations, that's at least a $300 million discrepancy.
With respect to last year's spending, in the minister's words, for 2006-07, the total was $3.336 billion, including ecoTrust, $1.519 billion paid out on the last day of March. But all the provinces have stated, in their own budgets, that they haven't received a penny of ecoTrust money in our early research that is contingent on the 2007-08 budget passing.
Having looked at the numbers and the sums, I just couldn't understand where the money was at. I thought it would be helpful for us to bring back to the committee, as soon as practicable, as soon as convenient, the senior officials to examine, again, in more detail the climate change spending for 2006-07 and the anticipated spending for 2007-08.
I'm also disappointed because I e-mailed our chair two days ago, hours after the testimony, reminding the chair, and I copied the clerk, that the minister assured us he would get to us by Thursday of this week, today, a detailed breakdown of the spending in 2006-07 and the anticipated spending for 2007-08. I would assume that this information is available at the push of a computer keyboard button, that this information is calculated, defensible, the sums have been added up, the estimates are correct, and that a key breakdown of what's actually been spent and being anticipated in spending surely is available at the push of a button on the minister's desk. Surely the government, the parliamentary secretary, must have access to those numbers.
So because no material has arrived, as well as the fact that we asked the minister to provide for us by today a copy of the interesting deck that was put up for public and photo opportunity consumption.... That deck has not materialized in both official languages. There are staff here from offices who I think might have been working the computers and might be able to table that deck today, in both official languages. That has mysteriously not appeared today, after it was asked for and we were assured we would get it.
I thought, well, we need to hear more. We just need to hear more. As parliamentarians, our first responsibility is the estimates process. It's about transparency. It's about accountability.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I want to advise the committee that different committees are waiting for material to be translated. That may be part of Mr. McGuinty's problem with the issue at hand. Certainly I don't think he should blame translation for any backlog in the work.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
If I might respond to that point of order--it's an important one--if the parliamentary secretary is telling me the estimates that are available to the minister and his staff are not in both official languages immediately, I have a hard time believing that. The estimates are always produced in both official languages. In fact, so is all the accounting.
The point is that it would be helpful for us to hear from senior officials again before the House rises, which is why I put a tentative date of June 5 in the notice of motion. I open it, Mr. Chair, for discussion.
I do formally move this motion. I don't think I used those words at the beginning of my remarks.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is it your intention, because it's not clear from the motion, that this would be a further part of the study of the main estimates, or a self-initiated study? It doesn't specify that in the motion.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I would expect this to be part of the main estimates process.
I need some clarification as to the nature of your question, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
The question was whether this study, which you ask the department officials to come for, would be part of the study of the main estimates or it would be a new, self-initiated study.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It's part of the continuum. I don't think we got the the clarity we would expect to get in the ministerial presentation of last Tuesday.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
The clerk has indicated that could be acceptable as part of the motion. That's part of the motion you're moving it, I take it.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
All right. That's the information I have from the clerk.
For your information, before we continue with the discussion, it's worthwhile to understand what we're debating. It is a notice of motion, and the motion would say that as part of the main estimates, the committee invite department officials from Environment Canada and Treasury Board, etc.
On a point of order, Mr. Godfrey.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If one were to add a phrase, “in accordance with the right of the official opposition to designate one department for delay of estimates”, does it add clarity? That is what we're doing: it's an official request at the level of the opposition to designate one department for delayed consideration. Whether that actually helps or not, I don't know.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
From that clause that has been added to the motion I've read, I think it is clear. I think members are cognizant that what you've just referred to as a point of order has occurred.
We have a list: Mr. Cullen, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Lussier, and Mr. Warawa.
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm reminded of some advice that Mr. Mills gave the committee at one point in terms of how parliamentary committees have not traditionally done a good job at getting answers out of the main estimates process. There has been more of a skimming approach. As we do this we should seek to be a bit more surgical about what we're trying to understand and then dive a little more into one or two or three aspects.
I don't know if it was something off the top of Mr. McGuinty's head or something prepared--it doesn't matter--, but he made a list of things that he wants to know about: some of the energy components in particular. I think that's more productive. Maybe we could seek some assistance from the clerk or the Library in terms of preparing some analysis. Frankly, the whole main estimates is a large budgetary item. Oftentimes questions become more vague than specific. If there is something particular we want to know, that is the focus we'll be bringing.
I put that into the mix. As opposed to having a general view of what the department is doing or not doing, let's dive into something in particular. I took that advice from Mr. Mills to be able to actually bring something back to Parliament or the Canadian people and say this is the area of concern or this has to have more done to it.
I'll leave it at that.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Perhaps that's an invitation of sorts to the analysts and researchers to look at these questions in advance of that meeting. Members might want to give suggestions in terms of key areas they would looking for the researchers to consider. That's up to members, and I would encourage them to do so. Next Tuesday isn't necessarily the deadline for that, because we're a ways off from having those meetings.
We'll go on to Mr. Harvey.
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Well, Mr. Bigras is next, and then Mr. Warawa and Mr. Godfrey.
Monsieur Bigras.
