Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

Opposition Motion—The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today to the Liberal opposition motion on climate change. In the next 20 minutes I will try to show that, as we look ahead to the climate change conference in Cancún eight months from now, we must take real action to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through.

I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not, but it is a bit paradoxical that the Liberal opposition motion comes just a few hours before an important vote on NDP Bill C-311. It is as if the Liberal Party were trying to show that a parliamentary motion was the best response to a legislative initiative. There is nothing stronger legislatively than a bill, whether it comes from the government or from a private member.

The Liberal Party showed leadership on this issue in the past. I remember when the Liberals introduced Bill C-288, which was sponsored by the member for Honoré-Mercier. The purpose of this bill was to implement the Kyoto protocol. At the time, the Liberal Party understood that it took a bill to ensure that international climate change agreements, and the Kyoto protocol in particular, had some regulatory teeth. This is what the NDP has understood in recent years, and a parliamentary motion is no substitute for a private member's bill.

That is why, in a few hours, we will support Bill C-311, just as we supported Bill C-288 introduced by the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier.

We think the Liberal Party motion, which I would describe as epic in length, is commendable. In the 13 years I have been sitting in Parliament, I have rarely seen such a long motion. I have read it and re-read it. There are no less than 10 points in this motion. The position of this Parliament could very well have been summed up in just three or four points, as the Bloc Québécois did on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change conference.

What did the Bloc Québécois say a few weeks before the Copenhagen climate change conference? The Bloc limited its opposition motion to three points. First, Canada must commit to doing everything in its power to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2^oC higher than in the pre-industrial period. Second, it must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 25% lower than 1990 levels by 2020. Third, it must commit to giving developing countries the technological and financial means to adapt to climate change.

The motion could have stopped there, but no, here we have a 10 point motion, which we support, of course. Nevertheless, the motion could have been clearer.

Let us look at the first point. The Liberal Party wants the government to:

...use the legislative, regulatory and fiscal authorities already available to the Government of Canada to put in place immediately a national climate change plan that implements economy-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and invests in renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency in order for Canada to compete in the new green economy;

How could we be against this first point of the motion? We are somewhat surprised that today, in 2010, the Liberal Party is proposing regulation. I remember what the Liberal Party was proposing in 1997-98. I was here in the House at the time. It was not proposing a regulatory approach to fight climate change. It was proposing a voluntary approach.

It proposed sector-by-sector negotiations of greenhouse gas reduction agreements that would not have the force of law. This was done in the pulp and paper sector and the steel industry. However, it became evident that the voluntary approach put forward by the Chrétien government made it impossible to respect our international commitments on greenhouse gas reductions. Today, the Liberal Party realizes that the voluntary approach proposed by the Liberal government at that time has not achieved its objectives and that a regulatory approach is needed.

We have before us a Conservative government that does have a regulatory framework for fighting climate change. However, after all these years, we are still waiting for greenhouse gas reduction regulations. We have not found an approach that could have resulted in substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The government has two means at its disposal: the regulatory approach and implementation of a greener tax system, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide tax incentives to environmental industries that contribute to those reductions. I will come back to that later.

However, we only have a regulatory framework before us, one without targets and without greenhouse gas emission regulations. We support the climate change regulations. However, we do not want to adopt the sectoral approach proposed by the federal government, which consists of putting all Canadian industrial sectors on an equal footing, especially the major industrial emitters.

In Quebec, we figure that we have been taking responsibility since the beginning of the 1990s. Manitoba was one of the first provinces to implement a plan to fight climate change. These plans have produced concrete results: in 2007, we saw a 23.6% reduction in greenhouse gases in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, compared to the 1990 levels.

Now, all the federal parties seem to be proposing putting the Quebec manufacturing sector, which has cut its greenhouse gas emissions, on an equal footing with the other major industrial emitters. I am referring, of course, to Canada's oil and gas industry. This is unacceptable, because this approach favours the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

We are saying yes to regulations, but as my colleagues said earlier, we must use the triptych approach that was developed at a university in Austria, which puts responsibility on the provinces. Canada can obviously negotiate greenhouse gas reductions on the international scene, as Europe did with an 8% reduction as part of the Kyoto protocol. But let the provinces achieve their targets in their own way, in their own jurisdictions. We must remember that under the Constitution, natural resources are a provincial jurisdiction.

The government has been proposing this asymmetrical approach for so many years within the Canadian federation. Yes to a Canada-wide target for reducing greenhouse gases, but let us keep our provincial reduction targets.

The Liberal Party's second point is that the government should “stop putting Canada’s environmental and economic future at risk by insisting that Canada must wait for the United States to act first before showing our own leadership on this most vital issue.” Over the past few years we have seen the central federal government's complacency and lack of leadership when it comes to climate change. This is why the provinces decided to negotiate agreements with American states as part of climate groups.

This demonstrates that nations, that the Quebec nation, can negotiate with American states and move the climate issue forward more quickly than the federal government has been able to do over the past few years.

The best example is most likely that of automobile regulations. For years Ottawa refused to implement automobile manufacturing standards similar to those in California. Quebec decided to harmonize its standards with those in California. It was successful in pressuring central governments to adopt more acceptable federal environmental standards.

This shows that Quebec is better than the federal government at influencing the fight against climate change on a continental scale.

The third point of the motion talks about setting “a domestic legally-binding long-term greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050”. This is probably the weakest aspect of the motion, which is unfortunate. We would have expected more from the Liberal Party.

We can set long term targets, but we also need to set short and medium term targets. Where are the greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020? For the past few years scientists have been saying that if we want to limit temperature increases to two degrees Celsius, industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below the 1990 level by 2020, and not by 2050.

With this motion and this government we will be putting off dealing with these problems. They refuse to tackle climate change in the short and medium term and are deferring efforts until 2050. We cannot accept this, especially at a time when industrialized countries are meeting in Canada for the G20. We must send a clear message: in eight months in Cancún, we will be ready to make short and medium term commitments.

Unfortunately, this motion gives no indication of any short and medium term efforts. It talks about long term efforts, which are commendable and which we do not oppose. However, this is an urgent problem that requires short and medium term targets.

The fourth point of the motion has to do with reporting “to Parliament annually on its policies and proposals to achieve the trajectory toward the 80 percent target and revise as necessary”. I think these aspects were taken from Bill C-288, at the time introduced by the Liberal Party. The purpose is probably to allow the environment commissioner to play a greater role. Parliament must focus on achieving these targets. We completely agree with this proposal.

The motion goes on to talk about establishing “a non-partisan expert group approved by Parliament to set a science-based emissions trajectory to reach that 80 percent reduction target”. Clearly, we must ensure that any targets we set are not subject to the vagaries of political change in Ottawa. Science has to resume a leading role in helping elected officials make good decisions.

The budget for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences was cut. The government is trying to muzzle Environment Canada scientists by giving them a communications guide and telling them that their research, reports and documents have to be relevant to the government's goals and policies. That is nonsensical. A healthy government should ensure that scientists have complete independence to do their scientific work.

That is why we need an independent group of scientific experts to make recommendations to parliamentarians and government free from the influence of political vagaries in Ottawa.

The sixth point calls on the government to “reverse the decision to cut the ecoENERGY program”. The first thing this government did when it came to power was initiate a program review. It directed the Treasury Board to assess the ecoenergy programs and divide them into three categories: programs to cut, programs to maintain and programs to improve.

That was terrible for the economy itself, and especially for the desire and the vision to stimulate a greener economy. The ecoauto program was eliminated. The program was not perfect. It provided tax incentives to people who purchased vehicles that consumed around 9 litres of gas per 100 kilometres. The government wanted to change the tax paradigm to give people who bought energy-efficient vehicles a refund. I strongly believe that the measure was in line with what I would call strategic environmental assessment to achieve better governance and greener taxation.

Environmental companies told us that under the wind power production incentive or WPPI, they received tax assistance of 1¢ to 1.5¢ per kilowatt hour produced using wind energy. This program was very successful and promoted wind energy. Subsequent budgets have not provided any money for the WPPI or any tax assistance for the wind industry, and Canadian companies are now telling us that they are going to leave Canada for certain U.S. states, because the American taxation system is more beneficial.

The green shift is failing. Canada does not realize the impact of the decisions it is making, at a time when all the world economies that are going through financial, climate or food crises all agree that what is needed is a green new deal. The basis for our economic recovery must be such that we can build an economy that is not in the stone age, but really turned toward the future.

That is why, in October 2008, the UN sent a clear message to industrialized countries about a green new deal. We must reinvest in renewable energy, promote energy efficiency and make our buildings greener. Sadly, the government has missed this opportunity.

I could go on at length, but I will keep my remarks to just a few minutes. This official opposition motion is clearly commendable and worthwhile. We will support this motion, but we would have liked it to go further and be more in keeping with the principles in Bill C-311 in order to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through now, eight months before the major climate change conference in Cancún.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberal Party will be abandoning Bill C-311 and finally admit that such a bill would be devastating both to our working relationship with the Obama administration and to our economy.

I also want to thank the Liberal Party for its support regarding the Copenhagen accord. I believe within the motion, written by the member for Ottawa South, credit is given to the accomplishment of the Conservative government for achieving in Copenhagen an accord for which Canada can be proud and for which, after 13 years of inaction by the Liberal Party that tarnished our reputation as stewards of the environment, Canada can now return to its natural proud post as a great steward of the environment.

I will take a few minutes to address each of the elements of the motion item by item, the first being item (a). When it comes to addressing the issue of climate change, the government has a number of tools at its disposal, many of which it has already used. It is using its regulatory authorities to set tough new tailpipe emission standards harmonized with the United States. We are regulating renewable fuel content, and that is out for comment right now, and we are broadening and deepening energy efficiency standards.

The government has made investments in the form of eco-energy and ecotransport programs and through investments in energy-related green infrastructure . The government is also using tax incentives to promote green technologies and encourage the use of public transit. We also have transferred funds directly to provinces and territories to assist them in reducing emissions.

The government will continue to use these instruments in a responsible, effective and successful manner that promotes both environmental progress and a competitive Canadian economy.

Direct program spending is another area where the government can and has acted effectively. In 2009, Pew Research noted that Canada ranked sixth in terms of clean energy investment intensity compared to the United States, which is back in eleventh place.

When it comes to aligning Canada's climate change efforts with those in the United States, as discussed in item (b) of the motion, it is purely a practical matter.

Our economies and, in fact, our physical environment are so closely integrated that it makes no sense for us to move forward in isolation. That is all the more true at a time when economies on both sides of the border are starting to recover after the worst financial crisis in recent memory.

The reality is that if Canada does more than the U.S. in addressing climate change, it becomes uncompetitive. If it does less, it runs the risk of punitive trade sanctions. Neither scenario is desirable or necessary.

The Government of Canada is an active and supportive player in international climate change negotiations under the Copenhagen accord, as discussed in item (c). We are at an early stage of discussion under the accord and, in that context, it makes no sense for Canada to legislate a 2050 target. Any decision to legislate a target should follow a broader discussion, both within Canada and reflect our ongoing international discussions that started in Copenhagen.

In item (d) the government has already been completely transparent about the actions it is taking to address climate change. It is already reporting annually to Parliament on all the actions it is taking to address climate change and providing detailed information on their impact. Just today we released a national inventory report for 2008 which shows that greenhouse gas emissions are down 2.1% from 2007, or 16 megatonnes of C0_2. . That is an incredible achievement in just a few short years in government. Our government has acted on climate change and has got results. We admit that more needs to be done, and we will do that, but compare that to the Liberals who just sat back for 13 years and did nothing and watched emissions increase by almost 30%.

The Government of Canada will continue to take a consultative approach in developing future actions to address climate change, in reference to item (e). That said, it is the government that is ultimately accountable to Parliament and the people of Canada and it cannot abrogate its responsibility to set a course for meeting emissions targets.

Contrary to item (f) of the motion before the House, the eco-energy retrofit homes program has not been cut. It is still functioning and will continue to benefit Canadians with incentives to adopt energy saving retrofits until March 31, 2011.

What has occurred is that like all other energy efficiency and emissions reductions programs, the retrofit homes program is being assessed to ensure it continues to be an effective and efficient use of Canadian tax dollars. In short, under its existing budget, the eco-energy retrofit homes program will continue to operate until March 31, 2011 as originally planned. This has not changed. The program still has $300 million to be paid to homeowners currently in the program to support their home retrofits.

What has changed is that until final decisions are made concerning the continuation of the program, effective March 31 of this year, the program will not accept new bookings for the first stage of the program, which is the pre-retrofit evaluation.

Regarding item (g), I want to talk about the terms of the Copenhagen Accord. Canada has already agreed to do its fair share to help developing nations adapt to the impact of climate change. We will make our contributions to the $3 billion quick-start fund as soon as the amount for Canada has been pegged. The latest federal budget contains a provision for that contribution.

To discuss item (h) about the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the Prime Minister has already committed to phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. These act to encourage wasteful consumption. The Minister of Finance and Natural Resources Canada have been working as part of international efforts to examine these subsidies. I should point out that this government has already acted. In budget 2007, we started the process to remove the accelerated capital cost allowances for the oil sands.

Finally, in regard to item (i), in addition to the establishment of a cooperative framework on the international stage, the Copenhagen process has also had a beneficial effect on the domestic policy front. Leading up to the Copenhagen summit, the environment minister met with each provincial and territorial leader, reaching a new degree of understanding on climate change policy and programs with most of them.

I trust that this account of the government's actions on climate change addresses the issues raised by the opposition motion. We appreciate and share the interest in finding solutions that are as sustainable as the environment we seek to protect.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake, a man who is also passionate about the environment.

First, I hope the Liberal Party will finally abandon its support of the NDP Bill C-311. We will find out. Bill C-311 would have Canada divert from the North American harmonized target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It would also isolate Canada economically and throw us back into a deep recession. The Liberal Party might finally be coming to its senses, somewhat. We will have to wait and see.

We learned throughout our hearings at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, through hours of testimony from witnesses from all over Canada, that Bill C-311 was irresponsible and would harm Canada. The Liberals, as I said before, even called it the tiddlywink bill and an irresponsible bill.

The Copenhagen accord, the climate change agreement, which was forged during an intense two week period last December, represents a major turning point for Canada and for each of the 117 nations that signed it. It creates a functional international community with one shared goal, namely addressing climate change in a principled comprehensive fashion. Canada is a respected and fully engaged member of that international community facing the challenge.

This agreement acknowledges that climate change is a global issue requiring a global response. It provides for specific mitigation commitments by all major emitters. It provides for international reporting and review of the progress all parties are making toward their commitments. It provides for a predictable ramped up flows of support to help mitigation and adaptation efforts globally. Those are all good.

Going forward, the Copenhagen accord will be the foundation for the international and domestic policies of Canada and for all other signatories. It is the first time that there has been a comprehensive global agreement that deals with climate change and includes commitments from all the major emitters, including the United States, China and India. That is what we have asked for and that is what we have achieved.

Getting that many countries and all those agendas even close to the same page is a remarkable accomplishment. Ultimately the Copenhagen accord will be successful, not only because it moves us all forward but because of how it moves us all forward. It is based on the efforts of national governments on the inclusion of all the major players and on practical solutions.

The Speech from the Throne repeated the government's Copenhagen commitment to contribute our fair share of the $30 billion quick start funding agreed to in the accord to support developing countries in their efforts to address climate change.

That is why this past weekend in Bonn Canada participated in a meeting where the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gathered to discuss the next steps on how to transform the Copenhagen accord into a binding international treaty.

Next week the Minister of the Environment will be in Washington, D.C., where the Major Economies Forum will meet to discuss climate change and the road forward. This is the 17 member group of the major developed and developing countries, where considerable progress was made before the Copenhagen climate change summit to advance key issues under negotiation.

That is why the opposition's motion is a step backward, not forward. Maybe the Liberals have not come to their senses. Their motion is predicated on an exclusively domestic target for Canada and blatantly disregards the reality that climate change is a problem requiring a co-operatively, coordinated approach and a binding international treaty. Climate change is not something that one country can tackle on its own, especially a country like Canada that accounts for 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Let us take, for example, the harmonized approach of Canada and the United States. The Copenhagen accord has the support of Canada and the United States, which means that our stated objective of aligning our policies with their policies, not identical but aligning them, now has an enforceable international framework, a foundation. A man I respect, Mike Holmes, says “do it right the first time”. What the Liberals are proposing is to build something without a framework, without a foundation, and that makes no sense. That is illogical.

The reason for our approach, the international approach, is straightforward and logical. Our economies are so integrated that any effectual continental efforts of reducing emissions must include the close Canada-U.S. co-operation and alignment of our policies, regulations and standards.

Harmonizing our approach to climate change with that of the United States would optimize the progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness and prosperity. That means jobs, which is what Canadians want, and that is what we are providing.

Co-operating on our climate change approach also benefits Canada in terms of joint research and development of clean energy technology.

At the North American leaders summit last August, our Prime Minister and Presidents Obama and Calderon agreed to a program of collaborative work, including initiatives in carbon capture and storage, gas flaring and energy efficiency. Agreement was also reached to begin work toward a 21st century continental electricity smart grid, again continental.

We do not want to pursue an illogical path as proposed by the Liberals that would create barriers to trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage. We also do not want to do less than our most important trading partners and risk facing new border barriers into the American market.

At a time when the world is recovering from the worst financial crisis in memory, a Liberal proposal of increasing taxes and isolation is not what Canadians want and not what Canada needs.

On the continental front we have made excellent progress working with the U.S.. We recently made a joint announcement of stringent new vehicle tailpipe emission standards starting with the 2011 model, which is next year. That reality and the fact that the United States has committed to the Copenhagen accord will also see us work even more closely to further enhance the clean energy dialogue.

The clean energy dialogue was established when our Prime Minister met with President Obama more than a year ago to optimize co-operation on emerging technologies, such as carbon capture storage, smart electricity grids, clean energy research and development, all of which we are making significant progress on.

Not all of the work on climate change will be on the international and continental front. There is plenty that we are already doing right here in Canada.

Since 2007, the government has invested in a range of eco-action programs, many of which promote the use of new technologies.

In 2009, Canada's economic action plan included billions of dollars in spending on initiatives like the clean energy fund and the green infrastructure fund. They provide close to $2 billion for the development of promising clean energy technologies and green infrastructure projects, all benefiting Canada and the world. That focus on technology and innovation relating to climate change will be sustained.

The government intends to stay the course on the path it has chosen: to join hands around the world to combat climate change. We will also continue to use the tools at hand to ensure that our approach to climate change is sustainable, meeting the needs of this present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

I would like to share a quote by Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who made this comment before Copenhagen. He said:

Canada has a tough period behind it in terms that Canada did rise and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but its main trading partner the United States, did not, which left it in a very unbalanced situation.

He went on to say, “What I see Canada doing is encouraging. It is very constructive in these negotiations”. He brought to light that the previous Liberal government did nothing. It created an environmental mess and we are working hard to clean that up. The Liberals need to support our good plans.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for particularly including in his motion praise for the agreement that our government negotiated at Copenhagen and recognizing that the agreement our government negotiated is going to restore our international environmental reputation, which was tarnished by the inaction of the former Liberal government for so many years.

I would also like to point out that we learned in good news today that our reputation will be restored by the fact that Canadian greenhouse gases have been reduced by 2.1% since 2007, primarily due to the increased hydro power encouraged by our government. However, the Liberal coalition environment critic is now really only proposing a watered-down version of Bill C-311, which he previously criticized as a tiddlywink bill. In fact, it is almost an insult to Bill C-311.

Does he plan to support Bill C-311?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are pursuing a continental approach under the Reform-Conservative government, why is the United States investing 18 times more per capita than we are in renewable power?

If, for example, the parliamentary secretary wants to go back to the committee work on Bill C-311, it was he and his colleagues who demanded a full costing of Bill C-311, but it was so steeped in irony and hypocrisy. The government has no plan. It has a target, but it has absolutely no costing. It has no pathway and no trajectory. It has nothing.

For the parliamentary secretary to stand and talk about harmonization and continental approach, I am really reminded by some of the comments made by the Minister of the Environment, who some days, to be quite honest, I think I am hearing an undersecretary of environment from Washington speaking.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague across the way. My question for him is this. How will he vote on Bill C-311, which we will vote on very shortly? We will also vote on his motion. There seems to be some inconsistencies of what he said today and I hope he can clarify them.

When we listened to the witnesses on Bill C-311, every one of them said that there should be a continental approach. Bill C-311 did not support that. From what the member has just said, it appears he does not support a continental approach. Europe did a continental approach. Canada and the United States, in harmonizing our policies, took a continental approach to attack the issue of climate change.

Therefore, does he support having a continental approach and will he be supporting Bill C-311? Hopefully he will not because it is a bad bill and it would devastate our economy.

The Liberals have been famous on making announcements. The fact is the commissioner of the environment said that they made great announcements, but before the confetti hit the ground, they forgot those promises.

The Liberal leader said, “We made a mess on the environment” and “We didn't get it done?” Will the member answer that question? Will he support Bill C-311, a bad bill that he himself has called the tiddlywink bill?

Climate Change

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions in support of Bill C-311, the New Democratic Party's bill on climate change accountability. It is based on science-based targets, not politically watered-down ones, and they ask, in this petition, for a national plan to achieve them.

The Environment

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-311 is an NDP climate change bill that would devastate the economic recovery. It would force Canada to diverge from the aggressive targets that our government and President Obama have identified.

The NDP does not get it. An effective climate change plan must be done in partnership with our international trading partners and it must be done with economic realities.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday Canada's only federal climate change legislation, Bill C-311, will face a crucial vote here in this House. All the opposition members have supported this bill. Canadians want to know where we are going on climate change.

Since the government has no credible plan of its own, will the government join us in supporting this non-partisan bill on Wednesday so that it can have the vigorous debate it deserves?

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was totally impressed with the homework, the eloquence, and the rhetoric of the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

My question for him is this. Will he be working hard to ensure that his fellow Liberals follow through on second reading and move to third reading, and through the Senate on Bill C-311 to ensure that we set the targets and the timetables to force the government to do what he has so eloquently expressed?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The committee agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. She talked about the insane price of gasoline in the northwest part of Ontario.

Today Bill C-311 passed out of the environment committee and went back to the House. That is the NDP's climate change bill. Experts told us that would peg gas at about $2.50 a litre, about triple the price of gas in Ottawa today.

I wonder if the member is as concerned with that and if she has been as honest with the same people on fixed incomes about what the NDP's climate change bill will do as she has been about what she thinks the effects of the HST will be.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act. This bill is the culmination of an operation that the Conservatives began four years ago that has brought about the largest shift in Canadian history of taxes from the corporate sector on to the backs of ordinary hard-working Canadians. That is what the Liberals are supporting. That is what this bill is about.

To understand the scam, it has often been said that for a swindle to work, it requires two dishonest people, the person who is putting the scam together and a dishonest person on the other side who thinks he or she will actually gain from it. That is what we have here. The swindle put together by the Conservatives is the ideological continuation of what they have been doing for the past four years. The dupes in the Liberal Party are supporting them of course, and the numbskull premiers of British Columbia and Ontario think that somehow they are going to be putting money in their pockets, whereas in fact they are just further damaging the economies that have already been undermined by the Conservatives' actions.

Let us look at the genesis of this problem and how it began with the arrival of the Conservatives, shall we? Their ideology is that governments should play no role in the economy, that there is a pristine marketplace that makes all of the right choices, that anyone who thinks that governments or the state has a role in this is trying to pick winners. Let us look at it for what it is.

The Conservatives have decided there is one winner in the Canadian economy and it is the oil sector in Alberta. That is what has been destabilizing an erstwhile balanced economy that was built up in this country since the second world war. Successive governments always understood that to give value to the second largest country in the world with a minor population, today just in the order of 30 million, we required vision. We required the government to play a role in ensuring that we could develop our primary sector, forestry in particular and mining, that we could have a strong manufacturing sector as well, and that we could develop as modern times have allowed us to do, a tertiary sector, the service sector.

A lot of people look at the unemployment created since the fall of 2008 when the current recession began, but what we saw was that as a direct result of the Conservatives' choices, because governing is a reflection of one's choices and one's priorities, as a result of the Conservatives' choices backed every step of the way by their henchmen in the Liberal Party, they have reduced corporate taxes by $60 billion. The effect of that has been to provide that fiscal space of $60 billion to the most profitable corporations. I say the most profitable corporations because it should be obvious, but for some people it is not, that by definition if a company had not made a profit, if it was breaking even or losing money, it did not get any of the money from those tax reductions. Who did? Mostly the very profitable oil sector. Companies like EnCana saw windfall profits of hundreds of millions of dollars, which was totally unexpected and certainly unnecessary for it in terms of its operations, as did Canada's major chartered banks.

Who suffered? The manufacturing sector and the forestry sector centred in Ontario and Quebec for the manufacturing and the forestry sector which included a lot of lost jobs in British Columbia and in New Brunswick on top of those mostly in Ontario and in Quebec. That was a choice. Before the current recession hit, we had already bled off hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Ontario and Quebec.

One of the primary reasons for that was the high Canadian dollar which was being stoked by the petrodollars coming into Alberta that does not even internalize the environmental and social costs of the exploitation of the tar sands. There are three basic principles of sustainable development that have to apply to any exploitation of that nature. They are internalization of costs, polluter pay and user pay. Of course the Conservatives apply none of it. The Liberals are ill-placed to even discuss the subject. They signed Kyoto, and as Eddie Goldenberg, the former chief of staff for Jean Chrétien correctly pointed out, the only reason they signed it is for public relations purposes. That is why under the Liberals for 13 years Canada had the worst record in the world in terms of greenhouse gas reduction and that has simply become worse under the Conservatives.

The Liberals did nothing, the Conservatives do not want to do anything and the Bloc cannot do anything. It is a good thing that our leader, the leader of the NDP, is heading to Copenhagen. That at least offers some hope. I am told that this very morning, Bill C-311, which scandalously the Liberals have been holding up in committee, was finally allowed to go through, so there is a ray of hope on the horizon being provided by the New Democratic Party.

The $60 billion of tax reductions was only possible by creating a similar fiscal space. How was that fiscal space created? It was created by pillaging $57 billion in the employment insurance account and turning it into general revenues of the government. Again, it was with the culpable complicity of the spineless Liberals who have no principles and no beliefs. They backed the Conservatives every step of the way.

It should be remembered, as one of my colleagues said earlier, that the Bloc Québécois also voted for the first two Conservative budgets. That is something the New Democratic Party of Canada has never done. We have always stood up against the Conservative vision for the economy. We have always resolutely voted against the Conservative budgets and we are very proud of that record.

Some people have said that they may be taking $57 billion from the EI account, but it is a notional amount. They are turning it into general revenue, so who really cares, because it does not change anything; it is all still government money. There is a huge mistake in that analysis. Every single company in Canada, whether it was making money, breaking even or losing money, had to pay into that employment insurance account for every single one of its employees.

That money was paid in by employers and employees for a dedicated purpose, to take care of the cyclical nature of our economy for a day like today in the middle of a recession when there are dramatic job losses. The fund would be there. That is what it was put in for. To add insult to injury, $19 billion is calculated to be missing from the account now, because they have frozen contributions as part of the recession.

That means that the very same companies that were losing money in forestry or manufacturing and had made their compulsory contributions for every single employee into that fund saw that fund turned into a fiscal space that was given in the form of tax reductions for the most profitable corporations in Canada, stimulating even more rapidly the Canadian economy, with regard to the oil sector, at least, and pushing the Canadian dollar higher as those petrodollars came in.

The result, in the clearest possible terms, is that companies that were already losing money in the forestry and manufacturing sectors were directly subsidizing the very petroleum sector that was causing the high dollar and making their exports even more difficult because of the very high Canadian dollar. It is similar to one being asked to pay one's executioner. That is exactly what happened here with regard to the Canadian economy.

That is the Conservatives' way of doing business. That is what they wanted to do. That is what they set out to do. They set out to destroy the manufacturing and forestry sectors at the altar of the expediency of the rapid exploitation of the tar sands. As if that were not enough, projects like Keystone, one of the many pipeline projects that the Conservatives have put in place in the west since they arrived in government, are exporting the rawest form of the production of the tar sands straight to the United States.

We are exporting jobs. Keystone alone represents 18,000 lost jobs for Canada. We are not only stupid enough to send all of this south without any added value here, but we are sending it so fast that we are not even holding on to anything. We are not even internalizing the costs to the environment today and the costs for future generations.

The internalization of costs is a principle that Canadians all understand. When we buy tires for our car, the province adds a $3 fee to take care of the recycling of the tires. That is the environmental cost of the tires being paid by the person who is buying the tires. That is only fair. If people take the metro or the bus to work, or they take their bike or walk and they do not own a car, why should they pay for that recycling out of their general tax obligations? Why should they be paying to recycle their neighbour's tires? Everybody gets that.

It should be the same thing with the tar sands. It is an important resource, but it is not immune from the application of general principles of sustainable development. What one does is internalize the cost on a barrel of petroleum produced out of the tar sands. That would be the equivalent of approximately $3 to $4 a barrel. The internalization of the cost of sequestration of the greenhouse gases or their reduction and the treatment of all the pollution that is now being held back is going to be a problem that we are shovelling forward for future generations.

It is wonderful to watch the Conservatives, those great moralizers, wagging their index fingers under our collective noses, always telling us how to be and allowing the worst pollution on the planet to take place here in Canada in the Athabasca tar sands. Right now, the dykes at the tar ponds are the longest dams in the world. They are holding back what is not seeping right into the underground water. This is the greatest source of pollution right now in Canada.

We are destroying ecosystems. We are destroying groundwater. We are causing cancers that are exceptional, that can only be traced back to the chemical products being produced in the tar sands. At the very least, we should be internalizing the cost of that, instead of sending the bill to future generations.

Contrary to their theoretical position on all these matters, what we are doing with the Conservatives is enjoying ourselves today, taking everything we can for ourselves and letting the future generations of tomorrow fend for themselves. At the very least, a fund could be put aside out of those important revenues.

Both the internalization of costs and the setting aside of that fund would reduce the pressure on the Canadian dollar. This would make it possible to go back to a more balanced economy like the one we had built up since the second world war. It would be easier to export than it is right now with the high Canadian dollar. We could at the same time put in place an infrastructure of green renewables, hydrogen, wind, hydro and others that can be developed in this great country of ours.

However, there is a singular lack of vision among the government benches on this issue. The Conservatives do not care about future generations. They love to pose with future generations. There is nothing easier than to get a Conservative to pose at a hockey rink on a Saturday with a bunch of kids. What about the day when we will no longer be able to play hockey outdoors in Canada because of global warming and because of their incompetence and their negligence? That is the issue that has to be discussed.

We in Canada are in a unique position in the world. We have extraordinary resources that we can and should be developing, but we should be doing it cleanly.

The Conservatives are so much at the beck and call of our American neighbours. They are in such a hurry to get everything through the National Energy Board. They are in such a hurry to get all their approvals for these pipelines straight south, the raw agreement, to export not only our wealth but also jobs. That is the scandal of the Conservative approach. There is $60 billion in tax decreases for the richest corporations. Some $57 billion has been pillaged from the employment insurance account. Businesses that have already subsidized the oil patch are going to be asked to re-contribute in the order of $19 billion.

Right now, the government is saying, “We have a plan. We are going to look at the premiers of Ontario and British Columbia, the provinces which were the hardest hit by our previous plan to destroy the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Now, we are going to bring them to the table. It has been part of the plan since day one”.

The current finance minister said four years ago in his first budget:

The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

Do not try to convince anyone who has looked at the file that this is not the responsibility of the Conservative government. It is the Conservatives' plan. This has been laid out for the past four years. Without the Liberals, it would not be possible. That is the real problem.

In Ontario and British Columbia, the pusillanimous Liberals, because they have allowed the Conservatives every step of the way to destroy their manufacturing base, to destroy their primary resources, mostly in forestry, are now saying, “We are too broke. We have to give in to their plan”.

A regressive tax is one that hits the poorest hardest. By definition, this HST is a regressive tax. People have no choice. A retired couple living on a modest fixed income in northern Ontario or B.C. who have to buy home heating oil is going to be spending 8% more for that heating oil. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

It has nothing to do with one's revenue. It is not like an income tax, which is progressive: the more one earns, the higher the percentage; that has been accepted and understood in our country for a long time. This is a direct hit on the people who can least afford it.

What is interesting is it is not just those of us who work every day with people and with communities and groups who are saying this. I have a letter that was sent to me by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is really worth noting that it is as opposed as we are to this new HST. This used to be the bailiwick of the Conservatives.

The CFIB says this, and it is worth reading:

While governments did not consult with small firms in either Ontario or British Columbia, I should note that our members continue to have a mixed reaction to sales tax harmonization. Certainly, the expansion of input tax credits to the provincial portion of sales tax administration is a considerable improvement over the current tax-on-tax system we now have...[however, we have] a lack of trust that tax reforms will, in fact, lower the overall tax burden. We have heard many comments from members in Ontario and British Columbia that suggest concern that sales tax harmonization will not end up as revenue neutral or a tax reduction, but lead to an overall increase in the tax burden on Canadians.

What is interesting is it is bringing up one of the points that everyone has raised, and that is what is happening here today. The government has the temerity to use closure without ever holding any consultation or debate on this tax. It is our irresponsible Minister of Finance who said, “It's not me, it's the Liberals in B.C. and Ontario”.

Let us look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says, which is that we have to do five things that are not being done now. It has to be a win for consumers through a lower combined rate.

The CFIB explains, in an interesting manner, how it was able to back the harmonization in the Maritimes and be against this one in B.C. and Ontario. It explains that what was done in the Maritimes actually produced a lower combined rate. What we have here is a tax grab on the backs of those who can least afford it. That is what the Conservatives have concocted this time, with the culpable complicity of the Liberals in both B.C. and Ontario and, of course, their squid in the House.

The validity of the tax and associated revenue stream has to also be one of the important principles, ongoing vendor compensation and introduction of a fairness code. This was said by Dan Kelly, senior vice-president, legislative affairs of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

This is the result of choices. The bleeding off of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors is a direct result of what the Conservative government chose to do. We are leaving a debt to future generations in terms of the current deficit structure that we are putting in place, which will be one that we will not be able to get away from for decades. At the very least, we should be leaving something that future generations can use. We should be bequeathing them something in terms of clean renewables. We should be moving to an economy less based on carbon.

As George Monbiot pointed out last week in the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, and has been pointed out in a lot of other countries since then, the once diversified economy of Canada is being destroyed actively by the Conservative government. It is the same mistake that people have already seen.

There have been lots of treatises and papers written about this around the world. What Holland went through after the second world war in a similar petroleum bubble, which killed its manufacturing sector, Canada has not had the wisdom to avoid.

We have always understood in our country that it took a balanced approach to building the economy across our huge country. The Conservatives simply do not believe in Canada. They simply do not believe in the importance of maintaining jobs in diverse sectors like manufacturing and forestry. They think by pumping in petrol dollars from the United States that somehow we will be able to maintain the economy that we have had in the past.

In the time I have left, I would like to express my surprise at the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-62.

The bill is available on line for anyone who wants to double-check what I am saying. It includes a schedule that lists the participating provinces, and Quebec is not even mentioned. The whole bill is silent on the subject of reimbursing Quebec for harmonizing its tax. Quebec has been owed $2.6 billion for over 15 years now. Monique Jérôme-Forget deserves to be congratulated for having once again raised the issue in debate. Quebec's decision to harmonize its taxes was historic. The minister was twice mistaken when he referred in the House to Quebec's harmonization.

Those of us on this side are against an unfair tax that will hurt the poor. We strongly condemn the Bloc's decision to support this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I have a motion on the floor. It's a dilatory motion that is non-debatable and immediately votable.

All those in favour of adjourning debate? This is to adjourn debate on the motion. It's not to adjourn the meeting.

(Motion agreed to)

Debate on the motion is now adjourned. Just so everybody is clear, that motion is off the floor, but at the same time, we won't be considering that business now. We've adjourned debate on Bill C-311, so it will be deemed reported back to the House unamended on December 10.

Oh, wait. We vote on the main motion, true enough, which is that Bill C-311 be deemed to have been considered clause by clause and be reported back to the House without amendment. So we're going to vote on the motion itself, since we've adjourned debate.

(Motion agreed to on division)

That's carried, so we'll report that back.

Do we have one motion that has been on the record for Mr. Scarpaleggia?

I understand that you wanted to move this.