Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was godfrey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would also accept a friendly amendment to have “five years” changed to “three years”.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is everybody with us?
We have G-8, and we've added, “based on the precautionary principle”, and we've changed “five years” to “three years”.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It actually could be described as G-10, if you wish. Anyway, let's not go there.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
We're proceeding with the understanding that when we come to “the precautionary principle” in clause 2, we will be using CEPA.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Because they're consequential, amendments L-10 and L-11 are gone.
Now, this is a discussion. Amendment L-12 has basically been lost in the new version of clause 8. But let me invite a little discussion on this. The whole idea behind submitting the draft of the national sustainable development strategy to the commissioner for review and comment is whether these targets and implementation strategies can be assessed. That's the thrust of it. It wasn't that the commissioner was to approve of them.
But in the way it was set out, are these assessable? When the time comes for the commissioner to look it over, is it something where he has enough information to say this works or he has the right kinds of numbers here. It's really not asking the commissioner to rewrite anything or comment on it, other than how measurable this is. It's another stage of transparency. It's not intended in any way to prevent the government from doing what it wants. It's simply asking whether it is assessable.
As you will recall, we've taken out huge numbers of things. In other words, we're no longer going for the short, medium, and long term. We're not going on caps and emissions, economic instruments, full-cost accounting, etc. We've eliminated all that.
All we're saying is, would the government find it helpful to have the commissioner comment on whatever the government is coming up with from the point of view of whether this is ultimately assessable? It's not about whether the targets can be met; it's whether we can do the counting here.
Do you want to think a bit about that? I don't know whether we've got some--
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's just about accountability, really, to make it easier for the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
How about we make it a subclause (4), or a new clause.
Could we have your comments on that, Mr. Warawa?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, the concern I have is that the commissioner would then be in a conflict. As this strategy is in its draft phase, he would be reviewing it and commenting on it. He's also going to be doing an audit on it. If I remember correctly, that was one of the major cautions they had. You can't audit something you help provide input on.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think the difference is this. Are you gathering information in a form that is ultimately auditable? It's not whether you are meeting your targets or you are doing anything. From a technical point of view of the way you're presenting your targets, it's whether this is going to make it. It's like an auditor going in early and saying, “It will be much more helpful if you draw up your accounts in the following manner because I'll be able to make some sense of it”. That's what that's about.
Conservative
