Evidence of meeting #22 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 c-377.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I think we can all agree that when Mr. Layton presented his bill to the committee, he stated that a cost study needed to be done. My question will be short and to the point. A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr. Cullen.
Should a cost study be done in the case of the bill now before the committee?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I refuse to answer a stupid question.
A bill is before the committee, Mr. Harvey. If you table an amendment, or something substantive, then I am prepared to listen to you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chairman, I am not here as a witness, but rather as an MP defending proposed legislation.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I am prepared to discuss an amendment or an initiative. If there are no amendments, then let's get on with it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Should a study be done before or after the bill now before us is adopted?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Harvey, could you address your questions through the chair, please.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
It is a simple question. Does the NDP, the party that tabled this bill, feel that a cost study should be carried out before or after the bill has been adopted? Can the NDP spokesperson answer that question?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harvey's question may have something to do with clause 10. The focus of this discussion is amendment NDP-5. If Mr. Harvey wishes to move a subamendment to an amendment, then I'm prepared to hear what he has to say.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Moving along then, that means there will not be any study, either before or after the fact. It seems then that we will be taking a similar course of action as was taken during the study of the Grand Trunk railway initiative during the 1850s.
In your opinion, is the study that Ms. Donnelley presented to the committee sound, yes or no? Clause 10 and all of the resolutions passed are based on that study.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like the NDP spokesperson to answer the question, that is, of course, if he can.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Harvey has created his own measure of fiction and fantasy as to how this process actually works. If Mr. Harvey would like to show up at committee having done his homework, having presented any amendments that he wishes to discuss with the committee or any observations, that would be welcome. He is participating in a filibuster on behalf of his government, for reasons he knows not. That is his choice. I will not aid or abet this waste of taxpayer dollars and assist Mr. Harvey in some fantastical discussion that he would like to embark upon.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Harvey, if you wish to continue, I think you've had the answer or non-answer, however you want to interpret it. Just carry on.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I am being accused of filibustering when in fact all I've done is ask some very brief questions. My turn to ask questions came up about three minutes ago. I had five questions in mind, and I've already asked four of them. They were the type of questions that required answers such as “yes”, “no”, “before” or “after”. Is putting a simple question to the party sponsoring the bill a case of filibustering? I did not put the question to my Liberal or Bloc colleagues, but to my colleague who represents the party that sponsored the bill now before the committee.
Certain statements were also made by his party's leader. I asked him whether or not he agreed with what his leader said. If he does not want to answer the question...
This is looking more and more like the bill tabled by the Liberals around the time of the Kyoto Protocol. They have since admitted publicly that they drafted the bill on a paper napkin while on an airplane and that in every respect they had improvised. Today, the NDP representative is showing us just how much his party is improvising, perhaps with some help from the opposition. I am pleased that the record will show that this bill is seriously flawed. Perhaps these proceedings are being televised as well.
According to Ms. Donnelley's study, 99% of Saskatchewan's GDP and 56% of Alberta's GDP would be affected. How can we say that there will not be a problem and that everything will be the same as it was in the case of the Grand Trunk railway initiative? If 56% of Saskatchewan's GDP is affected, that is worse than a nuclear bomb. A 5% hit already means a serious recession. I don't know if there an any scenarios on the books for a hit of over 50%. That scenario is unfathomable! I have a hard time believing that for the sake of an ideology...
The Conservative party has often been criticized for being an ideological party. I asked if a costing should be done, yes or no. They refused to answer my question. I asked if such a study should be done before or after the bill is adopted. Again, no answer was forthcoming. I asked if Ms. Donnelley's study was sound. Again, no response. What's going on here? When rather serious questions are raised about this bill, no one wants to answer them.
Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if perhaps there is some way to force my colleague to answer these questions so that we can move forward and establish what is reasonable, and what is not. I think these questions are reasonable. It is reasonable to want to know how the Canadian economy will be affected by this bill.
When the spokesperson for David Suzuki testified before the committee, I asked him what benefit there was to the environment to produce aluminum in China, when seven tons of emissions were produced per ton of aluminum produced, whereas in Canada, the figure was four tons of emissions per ton produced. I was told that it was important for China and all emerging economies to be a part of this initiative. That is exactly what our Prime Minister is saying. That is precisely what the Minister of the Environment has been saying for the past six months. The NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals have refused to acknowledge the fact that it is important for everyone to be involved in this initiative.
I believe in a clean environment. We must bequeath to our children the best possible environment we can, but not at any cost. We need to have something left over after reductions of 52%. What is the NDP calling for today? It wants to see GHG emissions cut by 52% by the year 2020. That is a formidable challenge in that in 13 years, our colleagues have made the situation 27% worse, instead of improving it by 52%.
My Liberal colleagues who support this bill are being a little hypocritical. I appreciate that the Conservative Party is very efficient, that it keeps its promises and generally does what it says it will do, but to cut emissions by 52% is to take on responsibility for someone else's mess.
It is outrageous, to say the least, that 13 years after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, we're discussing targets that are 33% higher than the original ones set.
Asking that we hold off until impact and cost studies are done before approving Bill C-377 is almost akin to moving a friendly amendment.The 99% figure mentioned by my Saskatchewan colleague warrants further consideration. We need to look at what we can do to help them deal with this. The situation may not be quite as serious in Quebec, where the figure mentioned is only 9.8%, but beyond 5%, we're already looking at a major recession.
Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleague Mr. Cullen to consider the following friendly amendment asking that we wait until a cost study has been done before we adopt Bill C-377.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We do have the question of the NDP amendment, and that's not really an amendment to this particular clause, so I cannot accept that amendment at this point. We can accept it after we deal with the amendment we're facing. We're looking at NDP-5, and we need to vote on that and then proceed.
Mr. Harvey, all I would say is that you will find in planet Ottawa that there are many more questions than there are answers.
So that everyone is clear, NDP-5 would add a paragraph (c).
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're now looking at clause 10 as amended.
I'm not sure who had their hand up first.
Mr. Warawa.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
As I was listening to my colleagues, who share a similar concern that I have, I was going over the need for an impact analysis or a cost analysis. The first person who was asking for that was Mr. Layton. When Mr. Layton came on December 11, he said he wanted the government to do an impact analysis. He also went on to say that “Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”. He also shared that Mr. Bramley had been consulted and helped write Bill C-377.
Mr. Bramley was asked about whether or not it had been costed. It was actually Mr. Vellacott who asked him this, and he said:
Mr. Bramley, does your report do any economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada? In your report, “The Case for Deep Reductions”, do you have any economic modelling that focuses on Canada?
It was a very clear question. Mr. Bramley's answer was:
We cite a number of economic modelling studies but none that relate specifically to meeting the target we advocate for Canada in 2050. To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done.
So what we have here, right at the beginning, on December 11, is Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley--
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm looking at the same testimony. This has been consistently read into the record by Mr. Warawa, but he's absolutely got it backwards in terms of the actual testimony that came from Mr. Layton. I'd like to give him the opportunity to correct himself.
Mr. Warawa asked him to keep his answers short and Mr. Layton abides by that. The testimony of December 11 says this: “So at this point you have not costed your plan? So you're asking the government to cost your plan.” As the testimony given before says, “This is a set of targets.” That is Mr. Layton's testimony.
The parliamentary secretary continually misspeaks himself and presents the testimony as otherwise.
These are Mr. Layton's words: “It will be up to the governments of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve these targets.” That is exactly the testimony.
He can continue talking about other people's testimony, but that is exactly what Mr. Layton said, that “It will be up to the governments of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve these targets.” He said, “This is a set of targets.”
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I think that clarifies the point. I'm sure Mr. Warawa will take note of that testimony and make any necessary corrections.
Mr. Warawa.