Members of the committee, first of all, I'd like to welcome the minister.
An item has been brought up to me by Mr. McGuinty. It's basically a procedural thing, and I'd like to address it very briefly.
I would just let you know that when we had the initial communiqué to members, we said we were going to deal with main estimates. The reason I put that in was the fact that the supplemental estimates had been reported back on Monday, March 19. Our meeting, of course, was on March 20. So my decision was simply to put that as main estimates. However, I should make it very clear that the minister had said he would talk about absolutely anything. If the members wanted to talk about the supplementary estimates, the main estimates, even the migration of turtles in the Galapagos Islands, he was prepared to talk about that. I did make that very clear.
I should also explain to the committee that I did attempt to talk to Mr. McGuinty about his motion. I sent a message to him in the House on Monday, March 19. I got a reply from Mr. McGuinty saying that he was too busy doing interviews and could not see me that day. At 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning, we contacted his office, and again I was told he was too busy to see me. I arrived at 10:45 for our meeting on Tuesday, and again, Mr. McGuinty was not here until after 11 o'clock. So I did have to do it through Mr. Regan, and did communicate that message. I'd just like to clarify that for members.
As a result of that, I asked the clerk to send out new information after that motion was passed, simply saying that we would deal with the main estimates, the supplementary estimates. But again, and I repeat, the minister has agreed to come back at any future time. We have until the end of May to deal with the main estimates, so today we can talk about the supplementary estimates.
I'm not vetting any opposition member's questions. Obviously you can ask whatever you want about whatever you want, however you want—all goes, because the minister has agreed.
Now, I must say that in my 14 years here, I haven't had the privilege of having a minister who has said he would answer anything about anything in his portfolio. I'm very pleased that he is here prepared to answer any questions you want. If the committee wants to talk about supplementary estimates right from now through the next two hours, I'm sure the minister is happy with that. If you want to talk about the main estimates, then that's what you're going to talk about.
That's just to clarify the air so that everyone understands that this meeting is open and the minister is prepared to answer any questions.
Mr. McGuinty.
I am reluctant to continue this debate, but having heard your introductory remarks, I'm now in a position where I have no choice.
I'm deeply troubled by what's gone on here. I'm deeply troubled by the agenda before us here today.
And I apologize to the minister that he has to sit through this. I welcome him this morning.
I'm troubled, Mr. Chair, and I know that other members of the committee are as well. Let's try to clear things up, because you have opened this up from the get-go.
Not once, but twice, this committee voted by majority decision to study the fiscal performance of the government for 2006-07. Not once, but twice, the agenda, including for today's meeting, read this instead: “Main Estimates 2007-2008”.
All of us—all of us—believe in accountability, Mr. Chair, but you know that we can't hold the government accountable for what hasn't happened yet. We have until May, as you rightly suggest, to study next year's estimates. My colleagues and I do not want to hear from the minister on that today. This has been brought to your attention several times, and I think now it's only fair that a request be made to you to withdraw the main estimates for 2007-08 from the orders of the day.
I'll take a moment just to recall, for example, the chronology that led to the invitation for the minister to appear in front of this committee today. Before the break, on Thursday, March 1, I put forward a motion in committee that read as follows: “That with regard to a Committee study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2006-2007, the Minister of the Environment be invited to appear.”
During that meeting, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Warawa, suggested a friendly amendment—I'm sure he recalls doing so—to include the main estimates in the motion, which then would have read as follows: “That with regard to a Committee study of the Supplementary Estimates and Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2006-2007, the Minister of the Environment be invited to appear.”
I refused at that time to allow this amendment. He recalls that. I explained to the committee very clearly at that time that we could and should invite the minister to come a second time to properly address the main estimates.
I said, and I quote, “My thinking was, let us at least have the minister come, in the first instance, before March 26 to talk about supplementary estimates (B).”
:
Because that does not solve the problem, Mr. Chair. We've asked for a full two hours, and I think that something very, very troubling has occurred here—very troubling.
When I go back to the first motion we put to this committee, it was passed after Mr. Warawa withdrew his friendly amendment, after I explained that the motion was passed, voted on unanimously by all members of this committee—including the government MPs who sit on this committee—to do precisely what the motion asked for. After that motion was passed, a notice of meeting was sent out, and a unilateral decision was made to change the agenda to not reflect the decision of this committee.
In the wake of that decision to unilaterally change the decision about the agenda, we came back. The will of the committee hadn't been respected, so we came back with yet a second motion, which was debated openly on Tuesday of this week, just two days ago. We had another motion put, 48 hours ago, asking again for the minister to graciously come to be with us here for two hours to talk about last year—the year ending March 31—looking backwards, holding the government to account, as the minister knows. This is his job. Any minister of the Crown comes to do this sort of thing at committee.
Once again, I clearly explained that the motion was to call on the minister to testify exclusively on last year's expenditures, not on next year's predicted main estimates. Here's what I said last Tuesday to this committee before the vote on the motion, and I quote:
I think we're going to have plenty of time, Mr. Chair, until May, I believe, to do a proper review of this year's main estimates and I think the committee will want to follow through with a separate study when the time comes. But I think what we need and what the committee has asked for is a timely review of last year's performance, a reasonable request I think, last year's performance by the government.
The committee had a chance to debate the motion on Tuesday. At the end of the meeting, it was adopted seven to four—seven to four. So imagine my surprise when, an hour and a half later, I receive yet another revised notice of meeting that again mentions the minister will be discussing the main estimates for next year. For a second time, Mr. Chair, the will of the committee was not respected. I would even say that this was perhaps a premeditated act of defiance against the will of the committee.
So here we have a situation. I go to you on Tuesday afternoon after the votes. I explain to you my concern about this issue. I discuss it with you on Tuesday evening, Mr. Chair. You said to me that you were approached by the minister's office or by the minister directly—I can't recall which one in fairness—and that he wanted to discuss instead the main estimates today.
Now, if that's not political interference in the work of this parliamentary committee, Mr. Chair, I don't know what it is. We invited the minister. He graciously accepted to come and testify. I thank him for his time. We want to get to the bottom of what happened in the last 12 months. That's our job. We are elected as members of Parliament to hold government to account, and estimates is the primary vehicle at parliamentary committees.
Now, committees are masters of their own destiny. This is a well-established practice in parliamentary practice. Members decide together which direction the committee will take, what issues will be discussed during meetings. No one but the members of this committee can take those decisions. No minister of the Crown of any department can come to a committee and tell the committee what he or she wishes to discuss. It doesn't work that way.
So before we go any further in this meeting, I need a clear explanation, and I'm asking for a correction. I'd like this order of the day to reflect two consecutive motions that were passed, the first unanimously with government members' support, and a second one on Tuesday that asked the minister to graciously attend and speak to the last fiscal year ending nine days from today, because that is how you conduct an estimates process review, by holding the government accountable for what has happened and not trying to hold the government accountable for what might happen in the future. I am strongly in support of having the minister come back, if he would graciously accept, some time before the end of May so we can review the main estimates.
I have a question for you, Mr. Chair, in closing. Why was the will of this committee simply ignored? Why did you attempt to attach our signatures to this agenda, which in no way reflects two open debates in this committee pursuant to two motions tabled by the official opposition?
Canadians would be forgiven for thinking that the minister doesn't want to be held accountable. I don't know if that's the case. I doubt it very much. I think he wants to be held accountable for the millions of dollars that were spent in the last fiscal year. We need two hours to be able to do this. We need two hours to be able to ask the probative and pertinent questions.
So before we go any further and without wasting any more of the minister's precious time, I'd like a clear explanation. Did you, for example, have any political pressure put on you from the minister's office or from the minister to change this agenda, without informing the members of this committee, without putting it back to a vote, without bringing a subsequent motion to the floor?
How did it come to be that twice in a row what we specifically asked for here in this committee has been changed unilaterally by the chair? This is something Canadians who are watching want to know. This is a subversion of a very well-established democratic process, right here on Parliament Hill: standing committees. I asked you the other day when we spoke, in your 14 years of distinguished service, had you ever seen this happen before, and your answer to me at that time was no, you had never seen an agenda move without the acquiescence and support of the committee members.
So I'm deeply troubled by this.
:
I can feel the love in this room.
Some hon members: Oh, oh!
Hon. John Baird: I'm very pleased to be here today. This is my sixth year as a minister, and every other appearance I've had on the estimates tends to be a two-hour question period on any issue that's of interest to members of the committee, whether it's supplementary estimates (B), whether it's the main estimates for next year—which obviously in short order the government will be presenting—or the reports on plans and priorities, which will be coming out shortly. The two principal vehicles with respect to accountability for how funds are spent are the DPR, which comes out in the fall—and that deals with the previous year's expenditures—and the public accounts, which will be tabled in the fall. And those, as well, follow up the main estimates from the previous year on how spending was conducted.
I'm pleased to be here so soon after the tabling of one of the most environmentally friendly budgets Canada has yet seen, a budget that responds to the number one concern of Canadians, which is cleaning up and protecting our environment.
This week, with $4.5 billion in new environmental funding, Canada's new government has injected a substantial amount of new money to support our environment. We put forward a substantial amount of money to fight climate change, reduce smog, and attack air pollution. As well, we're investing in a clean water strategy and hiring more enforcement officers to ensure that our laws for environmental protection are enforced and that the health of Canadians is protected. And—this is what brings me here today—as Minister of the Environment, my comments will focus on a wide variety of issues in the portfolio, which includes Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
I look forward to responding to your questions on these issues. I also understand that I'm appearing under Standing Order 108(2), which allows members to ask wide-ranging questions, and I look forward to those questions.
Joining me here at the table today are Ian Shugart, the associate deputy minister, and Basia Ruta, the assistant deputy minister, of Environment Canada. We also have with us here today folks from the department who may come forward and who are appropriate to answer questions requiring a more detailed or thorough response. As well, we have representatives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and Parks Canada.
Canada's new government is serious about our environment and particularly about the issue of climate change. In her 2006 report, the former environment commissioner said, and I quote: “Since 1997, the government has announced over $6 billion in funding for initiatives on climate change. However, it does not yet have an effective government-wide system to track expenditures, performance, and results on its climate change programs.” She contrasted that with what was actually spent, saying, and I quote, “federal spending on climate change totalled $1.35 billion.”
Our plan does not include announcing $6 billion in environmental spending and only following through with $1.6 billion. Instead, Canada's new government has invested more than $3 billion on clean air and climate change initiatives in 2006-07.
In the last two and a half months since the asked me to take on this file, Canada's new government has made great headway in addressing some of our country's most pressing environmental concerns. Our actions have been driven by a focus on combating the devastating effects of climate change, cleaning the air that Canadians breathe, putting in place a better management regime for addressing chemicals, and delivering regulations that reduce the risks from pollution, while ensuring that our economy continues to grow.
As part of this government's environmental agenda, we have proposed legislation and gone ahead with several initiatives to take real action on climate change—the Clean Air Act, our chemicals management plan, the ecoEnergy, ecoTransport, and ecoTrust initiatives. These measures reflect the government's approach in addressing the environmental issues that Canadians and the global community are faced with today.
For example, we recently introduced the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change, which includes more than $1.5 billion in new national funding. This funding will give the provinces and territories the support they need to initiate or launch new programs to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and smog and air pollution.
To date, we've announced projects in six provinces, two territories, and committed almost $1.4 billion towards the development of new technologies, energy efficiency, and other projects that will give us real results in reducing both greenhouse gases and smog pollutants. I'm looking forward to continuing work with the other provinces—Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and Saskatchewan—in the coming hours, days, and weeks.
As I mentioned earlier, our government believes in actions that produce results. Actions we have recently undertaken and confirmed in this week's budget include an investment of $2 billion in ecoEnergy initiatives that will help Canadians use energy more efficiently, boost renewable energy supplies, and develop cleaner energy technologies.
The $107 million being spent on an ecoTransport strategy includes a series of initiatives designed to reduce the environmental impacts of transportation by making our transportation system more economical and more environmental.
Finally, $1.3 billion will support public transit infrastructure with our municipal partners.
For the first time in Canadian history, this government has introduced legislation that will enable us to regulate indoor air pollutants and outdoor air quality and greenhouse gases, establish national air quality objectives, and set standards for renewable fuel content and vehicle fuel consumption. This is a very important step for the health of Canadians. It's important because it will provide our government with the regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gases, smog, and air pollution, and it will let us enforce it with the strict targets that are necessary for Canadians today and in future generations.
Members will recall that we committed last year to invest $300 million in the chemicals management plan, a plan that will protect Canadians against harmful chemicals in our environment and will prevent their reintroduction.
We're also taking action to preserve our national heritage. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced $225 million to protect half a million acres of ecologically sensitive lands in southern Canada.
As well, we've made significant contributions to help preserve and restore areas such as Stanley Park in Vancouver; the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, in the great riding of the member for ; the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia; and Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, the hometown of the member for .
Among many initiatives of Parks Canada, most recently we took significant steps to protect a major national historic site in the north, on the coast of the Great Bear Lake, and we announced investments to restore the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada on Vancouver Island.
These initiatives, combined with tax incentives to landowners who donate ecologically sensitive land through the ecological gifts program, clearly demonstrate that our plan for the environment is all-encompassing.
The list I have cited is extensive. What we have achieved to date will bring Canadians significant environmental and health benefits, but we realize that more can be done and more must be done.
I've recently returned from a meeting of G8 environment ministers, where I participated in extensive discussions on both biodiversity and climate change with environment ministers not only from the Group of Eight but also from emerging industrialized economies such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. When I spoke to my colleagues, I carried a message. In order to ensure global success in the protection of our planet for future generations, our actions must be guided by both environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.
It's why Canada is taking significant action in a variety of areas to protect our environment and to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. It is why our government is looking at technology such as carbon capture and storage and investing in energy efficiency, in order to find real solutions to climate change that will benefit both our environment and our economy.
It's critical that the world not wait until Kyoto ends in the year 2012 to start talking about a new deal, a deal where all countries are at the table addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is not waiting until 2012. We are taking some of the most aggressive actions in the G8 to address climate change over the next five years.
Obviously we have accomplished a lot in only a few months. There is plenty more to do, and I can assure you that the funding set out in our financial documents will be critical to our ability to meet objectives.
Our ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change is not here in the main estimates, but the ecoTrust will be voted on in the budget.
Secondly, if you compare Environment Canada's 2007-08 estimates to the previous estimates, it might seem that Environment Canada's climate change programs have been eliminated. Mr. Chair, this is not the case. Climate change programs appeared under their own strategic outcome in 2006-07. In our current 2007-08 estimates, climate change programs have been integrated with the work of other areas of the department.
Because air pollutants and greenhouse gases share many common sources, the government is taking an integrated approach to reduce these types of emissions. As a result, the majority of Environment Canada's climate change work is now part of the department's broader efforts to protect Canadians and the environment from the effects of pollution and waste.
I want to emphasize to this committee that Canada's new government will spend more money addressing the concerns of Canadians about both air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in 2007-08 than the last government did in any of their previous budgets.
The last significant change in the estimates I'd like to mention is the apparent $55 million decrease in funding for the department's programs that deal with toxic substances. Though it appears the department receives significantly less funding for programs to address toxic substances in 2007-08, again Mr. Chair, this is not true. In 2006-07, funding for Environment Canada's air pollution was combined with funding to address toxic substances. In 2007-08, funding for Environment Canada's air pollution program was aligned with funding for climate change, again reflecting our integrated approach. The shift to align air pollution money with climate change money is why it seems that the department receives less funding to address toxic substances. In fact, together, the funding to address toxic substances and funding for air pollution programs is just under $0.25 billion a year, which works out to an increase of about $51.3 million from last year.
In the interest of time, I'll skip over the comments I was to make on the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and Parks Canada. But I would underline that they form critically important parts of my mandate as Minister of the Environment.
As Minister of the Environment, I'm guided by one fundamental principle: protecting and improving our natural environment. These estimates will help the Department of the Environment and its portfolio agencies do their part to make our country and our world greener. Together with new spending in the budget, we will promote real action on issues that matter most to Canadians: environmentally healthy and sustainable communities, energy efficiency, and continuing sustainable economic growth.
Mr. Chair, I hope this summary of Environment Canada's accomplishments and clarification of some financial issues provides the committee with the insight they have been seeking in areas of concern to the Department of the Environment.
I'd be happy to respond to questions that you or the rest of the committee may have.
Thank you.