Evidence of meeting #6 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 budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
No. We made sure everybody understood that we didn't want any more commitments for a period of time and where they should go if they needed authorization for spending.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So there was no cessation of field studies that were under way as a result of that decision. Everything has gone forward.
Thank you very much.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Again, thank you for your patience. You've been here a long time, and I'm sure you're getting quite tired.
My question is related to the $17 million cut from the previous Minister of the Environment, now the Liberal leader. Could you elaborate on what problems that caused?
Who can answer that for me?
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I'll take a crack at it.
As the minister indicated earlier, governments take decisions about reducing expenditures in departments. There have been several rounds of expenditure reductions, which usually take two forms: sometimes the actual programs and things being cut are identified; sometimes it comes out of the department's general operating revenues, so the department faces a reduction and has to operate with the lower amount of money available to it. There have been a series of those kinds of expenditure reductions over time.
The department has a budget, and we work at trying to live within that budget.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It does put stress on the department if you are missing $17 million.
5:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
All expenditure reductions, particularly ones that are not identified up front, put pressure on the department to manage, and that's what we're doing.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
My question is, has the minister made it very clear? We've heard the priorities that he's provided, but has he made it very clear that the priority of the government is to see absolute reductions of 20% by 2020; 60% to 70% reductions by 2050; and we're looking for the co-benefits of having pollution being dropped? These reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will make for some of the toughest drops of emissions in the world, but has he also made it very clear that we're committing to halving the levels of pollution by 2015? Has he made that very clear?
5:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Those are certainly the objectives the government has set out, and they're very clear to us.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I do appreciate your patience, as you've had many questions from us.
We've heard, clearly, some of the difficulties that previous Liberal cuts have caused, but we've also clearly heard the commitments from the minister, and the staff of the department have clearly shared that the commitment from the government, from the minister, is these absolute reductions.
He's also shared, Chair, very clearly that this government is going to be going to Bali--we talked about that last Thursday--and he shared with some of the members of the committee, both last Thursday and today, those commitments to ask all major emitters to be part of the solution. As this committee has heard numerous times, my desire is that we start focusing on solutions and stop the rhetoric. Let's look at solutions like things you'd like to see, Chair, and some good healthy discussions on gasification of garbage, carbon sequestration, clean coal technologies, and on and on.
I think it would be very appropriate that I move a motion, Chair, that we as a committee support the call of the government to have all the major emitters participating in targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard clearly over the months that without all the major emitters participating and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions will continue to rise globally. That's our goal as a government, and I hope it's the goal of every member here. So this is my motion, that we do call on all major emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as there's already a motion on the floor, this motion is out of order. It was made at the last meeting, in fact, and is still under discussion; therefore--
5:10 p.m.
A voice
It was on the agenda.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
That's true also. I provided notice of motion. It's not arising from this.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The motion is that this environment committee call on all major emitting countries to accept caps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I remind you that a notice of motion is already on the agenda and that that motion takes precedence over the one my colleague has just introduced.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
First of all, in answer to Mr. Regan's comment, there isn't a motion on the floor as such. The motion died as of the last meeting, a similar motion that Mr. Warawa made. Of course, as you know, I wasn't here.
As far as Mr. Bigras' motion, this motion, is concerned, if it were deemed to be on the subject of the day, it would supersede yours. However, I don't believe it's on the subject of the day. I believe we're here to talk about estimates. While I might totally agree with the nature of the motion, I don't believe it's related to what our witnesses are here for. Therefore, I would rule that motion out of order.
I believe you have a minute or so left, but I think the time has come and we now should move on to our third topic.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here and ask you to leave, and we'll carry on with our third item.
Yes, Mr. Godfrey.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order on the estimates. I am assuming that if we do nothing they will be deemed--
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
They have already been reported. Basically this was for information and advice to the committee. So that is done.
Members, the question is whether we stay televised or whether we go in camera. What is the wish of the committee?
Mr. McGuinty, have you got a comment on that?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Televised, Mr. Warawa? Let's get agreement on that.
Mr. Vellacott, you had a question related to televised.... Their cameras are on.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, I don't particularly have a problem with it being televised, but the norm is that it's not televised. We had it televised because of the minister being here. Is that not correct?
