Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

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

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa South to be quite eloquent. He is quite eloquent sometimes. However, sometimes his actions are not consistent with his pretty words. I am a little disappointed at the hypocrisy that I find implicit in contrasting what he said today and has said on other occasions with the actions that the Liberals have taken in general, and that he has taken in particular.

Over 13 years the Liberals did sign Kyoto but also they made no plan, they had no success in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, they grew by about 30% during their reign. The hon. member, as a member of the environment committee and as the environment critic for his party recommended to his party that it delay the vote on Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen. The Liberal Party could have chosen to have helped that bill to pass so we would be sending clear direction and clear messages to Copenhagen.

Why did the member vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen and why are his actions inconsistent with his pretty words?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are continuing the debate. That is the purpose of this debate today on the motion. However, it gives me the opportunity to speak to the third part of the motion, which is very important. I learned yesterday that of all the G8 and G20 countries at present, we are the only one going to Copenhagen with an official delegation that will apparently be taking part in the negotiations, but we have no representation from CIDA or our department of international cooperation.

We know that supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change is critical for the future. It is critical not only during the negotiations, but for the decades and centuries to come. It is true that the motion contains some very positive elements. I agree that it is important to send a message, a signal, but at the same time, we must not forget that the Bloc Québécois motion, like the NDP's Bill C-311, is in no way a plan to combat climate change.

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of my friend and colleague across the way, as well as the Liberal member's comments, and much of what was said was not accurate.

I want the member to comment on what we have all heard from every witness at the committee that has been studying Bill C-311. Every witness said that there should be a continental approach. The government's plan has been to have a continental approach.

Yesterday, we heard from witnesses from the EU and the U.K. who shared how Europe has a collective target. Twenty-seven different countries are within the EU target and they are doing it collectively. Some are higher and some are lower in their commitment but they have a collective. There was a real logic. I asked the witnesses why they would not do it separately and whether there was not a logic to do it collectively and they agreed that it should be done collectively.

This is what Canada is doing now through the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and the U.S. administration. A strong leadership from Canada is providing for a collective North American strategy. Together, we are harmonizing our approach to tackle the issue of climate change.

Why is the member opposed? Why does he continually vote against and speak against having a North American collective harmonized target for fighting climate change?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that, since 1997, Canada's approach to climate change has been based on a voluntary approach, on agreements with Canadian companies and industrial sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now we have to face the fact that Canada's approach, the federal approach to fighting climate change, has produced no desirable results since 1997. Now we have a government that not only has no plan, but denies the existence of climate change.

Since 1997, that party, which was in opposition and then came to power, has believed that climate change is the result of a natural phenomenon. This despite all of the scientific studies and all of the IPCC reports indicating that 95% of the changes observed are related to human activity. So it is not surprising that we now find ourselves without a climate change plan.

However, in the course of the committee's study of the NDP's Bill C-311, we heard from scientists and environmentalists. They all told us that we have to prevent global temperatures from rising any higher than 2^oC above average temperatures in the pre-industrial era, which is what this motion proposes.

Today, I would like the member who asked the question to recognize that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and that we need strong consensus among opposition parties to make up for the lack of leadership the government will show in Copenhagen.

I would therefore urge my colleague to read the motion carefully and to get on board with the Bloc Québécois so that our voice in Copenhagen will be strong enough to make the international community understand that this government and its positions do not represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Quebec and Canada, a majority represented by opposition parties.

I urge my colleague to support this motion, which I believe is in line with the wishes of most Quebeckers and Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for the motion tabled today in the House and take this opportunity to ask him a few short questions about the status quo in Canada today.

For a few weeks now, or even months, we have been examining Bill C-311 in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The purpose of the bill is to address the need to have a real plan of action when it comes to climate change.

Perhaps my colleague could help Canadians and Quebeckers understand the question that has been asked of every expert witness who has appeared before the committee in the past few months. How is it that four years after the Prime Minister and the Conservatives came into office there is still no plan? Yesterday, we asked the Ambassador of the European Union that same question. The Europeans tabled a plan nearly 1,000 pages long, which is available on the Internet. Canada has no plan for climate change.

How is it possible that after four years, two or three weeks before the Copenhagen process is to be ratified and finalized, Canada has ended up in this situation?

The Environment

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Copenhagen as one of twenty ministers who was invited by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what is going on at Copenhagen. We are a constructive player. We will try to get to an international agreement.

I am not going to stand in this chamber and take lectures from the Liberals on Kyoto and on Copenhagen and climate change, because they did nothing. They signed the Kyoto protocol which was ill suited to this country, to our geography and our climate. It would undermine our industrial bases. They are in favour of a carbon tax. No one knows where they stand on Bill C-311. They vote for it; they disavow it. They call it a tiddlywinks bill, and they still vote for it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Your Excellencies. I appreciate your being here.

As you know, the committee has been looking at a private member's bill, Bill C-311, but your comments today are focused more on the general issue of climate change and the negotiations for a new international agreement on climate change as we approach Copenhagen, which is just weeks away.

I'd like to focus, first of all, on a collective position of the EU and the U.K. as part of that collective position's targets. What is the importance of having a collective position? What would be the disadvantage of each of the 27 countries having their own position on climate change?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, High Commissioner.

We appreciate those opening comments from both Your Excellencies.

As requested by Ambassador Brinkmann, and I know in a previous conversation I had with High Commissioner Cary, they aren't going to be answering any questions that involve our internal politics and policies or be speaking specifically to Bill C-311. I do ask and encourage all members of the committee to take that into consideration since we are definitely privileged to have such distinguished gentlemen at our table.

With that, we'll go with the seven-minute round and we turn it over to you, Mr. McGuinty.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

I apologize that we are starting a little late because of the votes in the House, but we'll try to get through at least two good rounds of questioning after we have our opening presentations.

We are going to continue with our study of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

We're very pleased, and fortunate, to have two distinguished witnesses at committee today. From the European Union, we have His Excellency Matthias Brinkmann, Head of Delegation and Ambassador Designate for the European Commission. And from the British High Commission, we have His Excellency Anthony Joyce Cary, High Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada.

I want to welcome you both to committee.

We'll start with His Excellency Ambassador Brinkmann for opening comments. We'd appreciate it if you could keep it under 10 minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I can appreciate that. I can see already in the discussion that there can be very different regional effects when we discuss what to do about climate change.

I come from the southernmost riding in all of Canada. Of course, the auto industry is king there, so possible effects on the auto industry, for example, do become a major part of the discussion that I bring to the table here as a member of Parliament on behalf of my region. I can see now that issues can be very different with respect to the north, and I can appreciate that.

I am going to have some difficulty in terms of further questions because you both testified to some extent that you've either only read part of the bill or you haven't read the bill, so you may have some difficulty answering questions about the bill. I will pose them again for the record, and if you could answer in a written submission to the committee, we would appreciate that. I'll just leave them for the record for you so that you can provide a written response to the committee.

Specifically, because climate change has impacts with respect to the north, does Bill C-311 address the issue of adaptation in a meaningful fashion? That's question one.

Question two, do you feel that traditional aboriginal knowledge has been appropriately used in developing Bill C-311?

Question three is about industries in the north that affect aboriginal communities. Have they been appropriately consulted in the preparation of Bill C-311?

If you could provide written answers to the committee on those questions, we'd certainly appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm going to take it that we need more consultation with respect to the bill from first peoples.

Mr. Tulurialik, do you share the same opinion that more consultation is needed with respect to the specifics of Bill C-311, the NDP's bill on climate change?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses appearing here today, Chief Erasmus and Mr. Tulurialik.

We're here studying Bill C-311 currently, a bill sponsored by a member of the New Democratic Party, and of course this is not the government's climate change plan, though Bill C-311 could have serious effects upon that. Our options as a committee are whether this bill will be passed as is by the committee, whether it will be rejected as is by the committee, or whether there will be changes proposed to the bill. That's the task in front of us. And changes could be based on the input of witnesses.

Having laid that as the foundation to our witnesses, Chief Erasmus, I want to start with you, because I'm a little confused, based on your testimony so far. You said, in response to Mr. Woodworth's question, that you think you may have been consulted by the NDP in the drafting of this bill.

Mr. Tulurialik, you said you weren't sure whether the NDP consulted you on this bill, but it's possible that there may have been some consultation. You've also said, on the other side of it, that we need more consultation. So I'm not sure, for purposes of considering Bill C-311, the NDP's bill, whether there has been enough consultation or whether we need more consultation specifically with first peoples. Could you answer that question for me as a starting point?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

No. We're talking about greenhouse gas emissions. That's what Bill C-311 is.

I understand there are issues and concerns with water. The committee is currently engaged in a study on that, and we've been interrupted by this bill in finishing that. I'm not going to deny that it's a serious issue, but I would like to get back to the whole issue of whether folks in the northern communities would not rather see investments that were going to produce concrete results for adaptation, rather than investing millions and millions and billions of dollars in hopes that greenhouse gas reductions will somehow stop climate change.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a question for you, and I'll just preface it a little bit. I've spent quite a bit of time in Canada's north. I worked at Great Bear Lake, right on the Arctic Circle, when I was a younger man. I was able to take in the vast beauty of Canada's north. It was absolutely fantastic. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential in Canada's north. It certainly is a harsh environment. It's a harsh climate to try to survive in. I remember, at that time, over 20 years ago, the weather being quite inclement. When we would go out on the lake there would still be ice on the lake in the early part of July. And of course we were off the lake by September because the winds would pick up and it was not safe to be out on that lake.

One of the things that has occurred to me is that I would think, because of the harshness of the climate and the difficulties there, that adaptation would be a more important and pressing issue. If you take a look at what's been said by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if we were to hold our own levels of greenhouse gas emissions right now, which no economy will be able to do, it would take at least 50 years to see a change in the current trend we're seeing in the change of climate.

Knowing that, knowing that holding our own is still going to take 50 years to turn around, wouldn't it be more important for aboriginal communities and northern communities to put more emphasis on adaptation? I'm just wondering if you think Bill C-311 addresses any of those adaptation measures that would be so important for northern communities.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

At the moment, the government's argument for not wanting Bill C-311 to pass is that it will change Canadians' way of life and make their life more expensive.

On the other hand, it is my impression that, if Bill C-311 is passed, your life will cost you less and you will be able to continue living it in a normal and traditional way, even if the bill really changes your way of life. Otherwise, climate change will continue to affect your current way of life adversely.