Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I've listened intently to the comments made by my colleagues here. I think what we've seen over the last many years is very concerning. It's a pattern of Liberal flip-flops, not just recently, but over the last 15 years or so, and maybe over 20 years. Maybe it's a pattern that has been consistent.

The Liberals spoke against Bill C-311 when it was in the House and said it was no good. Then they voted for it, which left people scratching their heads. How could they be against it, yet vote for it? That resulted in Bill C-311 being sent to committee.

Then the Liberals said that Bill C-311 needed to be amended. Here we are to discuss amendments, and in spite of them saying it needed to be amended, where are their amendments? There are none.

When the Liberals were in government for 13 long years, they set targets and committed Canada to the Kyoto targets, but they had no plan. Now they have no targets. Today we've seen the Liberals filibuster, and we have protesters taking off their clothes and protesting a Liberal filibuster against climate change. So we've seen it all.

Our government has been honest. We've set the targets. The government is taking many of you to Copenhagen to be part of those international climate discussions and negotiations. We've been honest and we've said we want to have an agreement. The planet needs an international agreement on climate change. Canada will do its fair share.

But all we hear is talk, talk, talk from the Liberals. I think there has been enough talk. We need to move on to action, so I will move that the debate be now adjourned.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I would like to say that we will be supporting the NDP motion that deems Bill C-311 to have been considered clause by clause and reported back to the House without amendment.

Why will we be voting in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair? First, as far as I know, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party has tabled any amendments. So we must accept that, even if we were to make grand speeches in this parliamentary committee, and say that we had to have clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and that it has to be amended because it does not meet our needs, the fact is that no amendments have been tabled in committee. A few weeks or meetings ago, you very clearly indicated the prescribed timelines for such proposals. No amendments have been proposed. Those who wanted to see the bill amended did not come forward with any amendments; they therefore inevitably and indirectly subscribe to the motion as presented. We will see whether or not the speeches and votes reflect the speeches that we will hear today in committee.

Why vote in favour of this motion? Second, because it is urgent that we take action, Mr. Chair. We must make sure that we have a bill, a climate change act, before the minister arrives in Copenhagen. Mr. Chair, it is completely unacceptable to find ourselves with a government that has no strategy, no plan, no regulations, and that has postponed the implementation of its climate change regulations two or three times. In the meantime, south of our border, at least three pieces of legislation, in both chambers, deal with this issue.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearly stated that it considered CO₂ emissions to be dangerous. South of the border, they see the need to take urgent action. They are already working, studying amendments to bills, whereas we find ourselves in a situation where we have an opportunity for a bill... We can agree or not. It is, nevertheless, incumbent on us to amend what is on the table to ensure that we have regulations as quickly as possible. There seems to be some bad faith here.

In all honesty, I think that this bill is consistent with a motion presented by the Bloc Québécois and adopted on November 25, 2009. According to that motion, we must first ensure that any proposal accepts the importance of limiting the rise in temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial era. Second, in order to comply with that scientific opinion, we need a strong commitment to reach a reduction of between 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, which is directly stated in this bill.

Mr. Chair, we are therefore studying a bill aimed at respecting the spirit of a motion adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on November 26, and whose objective was to establish a 25% reduction target using 1990 as the reference year. Members of our government will be going to Copenhagen where they will say that we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. What they are not saying, however, is that the reference year being used is 2006.

I would remind you of all the efforts that have been made in Quebec since 1990. The manufacturing sector in Quebec reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% based on 1990 levels. I should also mention sectors such as pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters, which reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 15%, and all with no mention of intensity. In intensity, the aluminum sector's reductions in Quebec were 50%. In real reductions alone, the figure is 15%.

The Conservative government persists in its desire to use 2006 as the reference year. They want to start from zero. Why start from zero, Mr. Chair? For one reason only: to satisfy the demands of a single sector of Canada's economy, petroleum.

So this is not a fair proposal. In order for it to be fair, we would need to include paragraph 7(1)(b), which is aimed at limiting emissions on a provincial basis. My colleague, David McGuinty, is against it and does not understand why the Bloc is in favour of this provision. I must remind him why this paragraph is in Bill C-311; it was because of discussions with his Liberal Party colleague Pablo Rodriguez, when he introduced Bill C-288.

Surprisingly, at that time, the Liberals were very much in favour of paragraph 7(1)(b) because they felt that it provided greater flexibility. In their opinion, it made for a more asymmetrical federalism. We are proposing that Canada be able to negotiate an international commitment, setting greenhouse gas reduction targets for each province, exactly as is done in Europe. It is important to adopt a common, but differentiated approach, something that both Conservatives and Liberals have always promoted. It would have to apply here in Canada and we would have to use 1990 as the reference year. We would also have to participate in an international carbon market.

On one side, we have political parties suggesting a very weak 3% reduction target based on 1990 levels. On the other, we have a party whose targets are still not known. A great deal of time has been spent educating us about the three bills being debated in United States and we still do not know the target proposed by the official opposition. Is it 20%, 15%, 3%, 25%? Is it even higher? We have no idea.

But we do know—and this must be acknowledged—that the Liberals are adopting 1990 as the reference year, about which we are proud. We are pleased that the official opposition has understood that 1990 must be used as the reference year. So we find ourselves in a situation where the government is presenting us with an unfair, unambitious plan. We are hoping that the official opposition's position will reflect the votes that have already been held. What are these votes? There was the vote on Bill C-288, which sought to implement the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. There was also the vote on the Bloc motion, adopted by this Parliament on November 25, 2009, which called for an objective of no more than 2 degrees Celsius and a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. That is what we agreed to, in principle, by adopting Bill C-311 and this is was we repeated with the motion debated by the Bloc.

To conclude—I do not intend to filibuster—we will be voting in favour of this motion because it is urgent that we take action. The Copenhagen conference is taking place as we speak, and I think that it is important that the vote in this committee and in the House be unequivocally in favour of a bill that goes along with the recommendations made by scientists.

Thank you very much.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

My point is, sir, that in the context of Bill C-311 and its implementability in Canada, it's important to acknowledge where we are today and where we're coming from. That's why it's important for Canadians to revisit the relationship between this government and the previous American administration and the existing one. It's the minister of this government who is apparently heralding his great energy dialogue with the Obama administration, hiding behind it on a daily basis. I think that's completely relevant to this bill and this discussion.

They are Democrats by convenience, Mr. Chair, and they're Democrats by convenience because it's all about hiding and bobbing and weaving and simply not telling Canadians the truth, which is that we have to put a price on carbon emissions, on greenhouse gas emissions; we have to change the economics of fossil fuels and carbon emissions in the country, bring in a full suite of measures: fiscal, spending, support, adjustment, adaptation, both domestically and internationally. All of these have to be embraced in a coherent suite of measures, as has been done in less than six months, yes, by the Obama administration. But four years later we have no such comprehensive suite, and as a result, Canada has no plan.

So Bill C-311 has all kinds of challenges inherent in it. As I said, it is equally irresponsible in its incompleteness, just as irresponsible as the federal government's irresponsibility in, now, 47 months and counting, not delivering a single statutory instrument, not a single bill, not a single proposed law, not a single private member's bill, not a single regulation for consideration by the House of Commons. That is why, at this stage, we will not be supporting sending this bill back to the House unamended, because it is deserving of amendment. It is deserving of us going through this on a clause-by-clause basis to expose for Canadians how important it is for Canada to get a serious climate change plan for this country. Unfortunately, it is too late now, in advance of the negotiations that have already commenced, but post-Copenhagen, Mr. Chair, it will be extraordinarily important for us to come back to this House of Commons and hold this government further to account and drag them out of their corner, reel the government out of its corner again, and get a meaningful plan for climate change for Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes just to put on the record where the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, is right now with respect to this bill.

Our view in the Liberal Party is that Bill C-311 is effectively and essentially a call for a national climate change plan. It in no way constitutes a national climate change plan. It is a call for a national climate change plan. That's an important call, but it's not anything, for example, like the 1,428-page bill before the American Congress, a copy of which I brought here in the last meeting for the minister's interest. It's nowhere near a plan.

The elements, for example, set out in the American legislation are complete. They're complete because they embrace the entire American economy. They embrace different industrial sectors. They embrace the science. The measures embrace a trading system. They embrace the use of international credits. They embrace the proper pricing of carbon. It is a complete bill, and in and of itself, in the United States context, it constitutes a complete plan being negotiated through Capitol Hill today, engaging at least three major committees in the United States Senate. More, of course, Mr. Chair, will be engaged, as we know, post-Copenhagen. More committees and more dialogue will go on in the United States throughout the winter and the spring.

The second point I want to make is that Minister Prentice said this week that in no way would he be swayed by “hype” around the Copenhagen conference. I'm not sure what he means by hype. I don't think the climate change crisis is hype. I'm sure the Bloc Québécois doesn't believe it's hype. I'm quite sure the NDP doesn't believe it's hype. For that matter, I don't think that most Canadians, 82% of whom yesterday revealed that they're not at all happy with the government's performance on climate change, would accept that this is hype either.

If Minister Prentice won't be swayed by hype and international pressure, and in advance of the very international multi-party negotiation that we're entering he announces to the world at large that there is nothing to negotiate, that's hardly the way to start an international multi-party negotiation--“We have nothing to negotiate. That's our position.” So if he's not going to be swayed by hype, and he's not going to be swayed either by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which is Canadian law--in fact, the Conservatives are challenging the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act at Federal Court--then I don't believe that Minister Prentice is going to be swayed by an NDP bill, a private member's bill, which is a call for a plan. Because it's not a plan; it's a call for a plan.

I think at a certain point in time, several years ago, it was important to lay down some track to call for a plan. It's also important for us to remember what's been going on around Bill C-311, and remind Canadians what was done predating Bill C-311, in a previous Parliament, when the government sent a Clean Air Act to a special legislative committee. That Clean Air Act was sent to that special legislative committee and it was rewritten. It was supported by not one, not two, not three, but four political parties in Canada--three of which are represented in the House of Commons, and one, the Green Party, which is not. But four major political parties in the country supported the revamped and improved clean air and climate change act.

The government decided, in its own sense of wisdom, to prorogue Parliament and kill the bill. That's very unfortunate because in that clean air and climate change act was a complete plan for Canada. It spoke about carbon pricing, about how we would allocate permits. It contemplated a domestic and international trading system that reinvested revenues from the allocation and auctioning of permits into different provinces. It created a green investment bank. All of this was killed by the Prime Minister when he decided to prorogue Parliament, for the first time in his short duration as Prime Minister of Canada. That was a plan. That was a plan for Canada that was agreed to by four major political parties, and it was killed using a blunt object called prorogation—killed by the Prime Minister.

Point number three is that we believe Bill C-311 is irresponsible in its incompleteness. It's interesting to see the NDP now looking to rush through a private member's bill, having had the benefit of 33 expert witnesses to speak to the bill and not bringing a single amendment forward to improve a bill that was drafted over three years ago. There was not a single amendment. The leader of the NDP was here and said “Where are yours?” Mr. Chair, this is not a Liberal bill; this is the New Democratic Party's bill. It's their responsibility and the private member's responsibility to improve, to attempt to perfect, to ameliorate, the bill that was drafted over three years ago. But as we've learned this morning, there is not a single amendment being tabled by the NDP.

I think that speaks volumes about whether the NDP is serious about Canada arriving at a credible climate change plan domestically and internationally. In our view, they are not. If they were, they would be addressing a number of issues that I'm going to speak to now. Again for the record, there were 33 witnesses and not a single amendment, even though having reviewed the evidence, in my mind we've heard from at least six witnesses calling for specific changes to improve the bill and arrive at a stronger proposal—not just a call for a plan, but a stronger proposal—to embrace all the essential elements of a plan that should be embraced by a government.

I would like to talk about some of those right now. I want to speak first to what the bill purports to do with respect to interim targets. The bill calls for 25% reductions below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Yet we have heard from extraordinarily competent witnesses, such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the World Resources Institute, the Pew Charitable Trust in Washington, asking for clarification on how we would achieve these very ambitious targets, what the plan would look like, what the price of carbon would be, and whether the price of carbon would be fungible with American and/or Mexican and/or European carbon pricing.

There are serious concerns around these interim targets. If the NDP— and it's the mover of the bill—was seriously concerned about holding everyone to a minimum 25% cut in absolute terms from 1990, then the NDP would properly, right now, be taking to task the premiers of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and every other single provincial administration in the country that has not embraced the 25% reduction from 1990 levels.

Why isn't the NDP chiding the premier of Quebec, Monsieur Charest?

Its reductions, or targets, are only 20% with respect to 1990. Why not attack the premier of Ontario, Mr. McGuinty, whose targets are only 15%, and British Columbia, whose targets are only 13%?

Instead we see that the NDP is holding fast to a number that's very important, a number that we should aspire to be at, but a number that's not backstopped, in this bill, with a plan to achieve it. It's not to say that the Conservative government has a plan, because we've established through the testimony of 33 witnesses that there is absolutely no plan as we enter into these multi-party negotiations in Copenhagen. The bill is irresponsible in its incompleteness, primarily because of the interim targets.

Let us now turn to another part of the bill that is incomplete. I find it difficult to understand how any party, any federal party in our modern federation, could support paragraph 7(1)(b), which has the federal government dictating to provinces the cuts they will be expected to achieve. How is that possible? There is no constitutional authority for this. It would immediately lead to a constitutional crisis. In fact, it would ignite one. It would send different provinces over the top in seeking to clarify where their constitutional authorities begin and end. It would prejudge the outcome of what's already happening, where, in the absence of a federal plan from a Conservative government, provinces have gone it alone. They've gone it alone. Eight out of ten provinces have already committed to cuts averaging 14% below 1990 levels by 2020. Two other provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have not. These are tough challenges for a national government to crack. Unfortunately, this federal government has done nothing to bring together our provinces and territories in advance of this complex multi-party negotiation in Copenhagen.

This bill tramples on provincial jurisdiction. I can't speak for the Bloc Québécois, but I would assume they would be deeply disturbed about having Quebec told that its 20% target was not sufficient or perhaps too aggressive and that the federal government would cut or enhance its target. We don't see that as the way to proceed in a mature federation in the 21st century, and we are concerned.

Take the Province of Ontario. It is drafting its own tradeable permit legislation to join up with the western climate initiative in the western United States. They've had to go it alone, just as they've had to go it alone in negotiations in Washington. They don't work through the federal government anymore; neither does Quebec. They don't even pretend to, because there has been no leadership from this federal regime, none whatsoever. They have their own climate change secretariats, they have a deputy minister equivalent working in the premier's office, and they're pursuing their own negotiations. They are not waiting for the laggard Reform/Conservative Party. It's too late now. They can't pull this together and they know it.

Under paragraph 7(1)(b), there are some serious concerns that Canadians have manifested in testimony. Within the four corners of this statute, there are some fundamental challenges. The NDP has heard these challenges and has failed to address them in the form of amendments. That's the second and profoundly disturbing part of this bill.

We've heard other testimony about the extent of the powers this bill invests in the executive. This transcends the allocation of targets on a province-by-province basis. These haven't been addressed by legal counsel, the NDP, or anyone else. So there are some serious concerns about investing additional powers in the executive, which--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I appreciate having the time to comment.

We have Bill C-311 before us because it passed in the House. We've been consistent as a government with our target of a 20% reduction by 2020, using 2006 as the reference year. We've heard in the discussion of Bill C-311 that it's not a good bill. We've heard from every witness that the government's harmonized continental approach is the correct one. Even every witness who supported Bill C-311--some did and some didn't--said the government's continental harmonized approach was the right one.

There were different opinions on what target we should be using. We heard that Bill C-311 would result in a dramatic increase in costs of energy for Canadians. One of the examples was gasoline going from $1 a litre to $2.50 a litre. Canadians don't want that. We heard that Bill C-311 would kill jobs. There would be a departure of jobs from Canada because we would no longer be competitive.

Bill C-311 is calling for a 39% increase in Canada's commitment. It would not be comparable to what other countries are doing. It would be much more onerous and would put Canada at a disadvantage. As a government, our responsibility is to come up with a balanced approach for a cleaner environment, but also to protect jobs and provide a healthy economy. Bill C-311 does not do that.

We've been consistent from the get-go in expressing those concerns in the House. The Liberals even called it the tiddlywink bill, yet they voted for it and sent it to this standing committee. In hindsight--and hindsight is always 20/20--I'm sure the Liberals are thinking maybe they should not have supported this and sent it to this committee. But here it is. So what do we do with it?

Our government has been consistently opposed to Bill C-311. A preferred route would be to send it back to the House to gut it. Send it back with its title and that would be the end of it. The choice we're now faced with is to send it back unamended, and I think we will support that. It needs to end its life back in the House, and we will be opposing it in the House. But we support sending it back unamended now, with a clear understanding that we will not be supporting it in the House. It needs to die a quick death.

Canada does have a plan. Canada does have targets. We're going to Copenhagen. The minister is heading there and we need to have one united voice. Our plan is a realistic one with realistic targets that will create the balance of a cleaner environment. It will create jobs. Bill C-311 would take us away from that.

We will support the motion reluctantly, but only so the bill gets back to the House where we can kill it.

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I move that Bill C-311 be deemed to have been considered clause-by-clause and be reported back to the House without amendment.

Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Of course, I would never suggest that about my namesake. But he is from New Brunswick and perhaps he does not quite understand what happens in Ontario.

To talk about what we are doing here, this opinion piece comes from the Intelligencer, no friend of the New Democrats. To summarize it, it says that the provincial Liberals, supported by the federal Conservatives, want to bring in a new tax to help business. Clearly, there is a linkage between the two. It goes on to say that thanks to the NDP which has kept its traditional stance, NDP leader Andrea Horwath, our leader in the province of Ontario, has slammed the tax recently saying it makes no sense for the province to be handing billions of dollars to large corporations while creating a new 8% tax for the residents of the province of Ontario.

Thank goodness Madam Horwath is working on behalf of the ordinary people of Ontario because clearly the premier of the province is not. With the help of the federal Conservative government he is finding a way to take money out of people's pockets.

One of my constituents sent me a letter. She had written the premier of Ontario because she is very upset about what the HST was going to mean to her and her husband. They are both on pensions. I will be very careful with what I say because I know the language could be unparliamentary if I were to repeat it verbatim. In talking about a letter that came from Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, she said, “This letter is 100% bulls---. I hope you and your MP friends can do something about this pile of,” and the word begins with a “c” and is referred to as manure in more pleasant circumstances. I quote the premier, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you why we are making these important changes together” and he goes on to say together with whom. What is the federal government opinion of this b.s. idea? Clearly we now know that the federal government is in total agreement with the harmonized sales tax.

In fact, the Conservatives are so much in agreement with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia they have used the draconian measure of closure, not after the bill was put before us. Perhaps they were concerned that things were being delayed unduly and it would go back to committee, as has happened with other bills. We did not get up in arms when the Conservatives with their Liberal friends took the decision to send Bill C-311 back to committee. But this is a bill we have not seen yet and they want to use closure.

It seems really unfortunate that before we even get a chance to debate it, there is a decision to limit debate, which is not what the residents in my constituency sent me here to do. They sent me here to debate measures important to them. No measure that has come before this House since it convened last year is more important to my constituents and other residents in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia than this dreaded HST.

Far and away, the greatest return to me personally, as far as calling me, emailing me and indeed taking pen to paper and writing personal letters, is this one seminal issue, yet the government is saying, “We cannot talk about it for very long. We want to move it along. The province is doing likewise. Let us get it over with by Christmas”.

I know I cannot refer to the hon. Prime Minister by name but some would refer to the HST as his tax. Some might call it the “happy sales tax” as we head toward Christmas, except that would be an undue measure on the folks in my riding who are struggling. People are having a great deal of trouble trying to work through these deplorable times when their incomes have been cut by 40% or 50%, in some cases by 100% because their EI has run out. Now they are drawing on what little equity they may have and what little value they have left in their homes or any other things before they apply for social assistance.

It really is reprehensible that we are about to embark upon a major decision in this House without taking the time to have proper debate, without taking into consideration that nearly 80% of Ontarians and British Columbians say no to the HST. Those are the indicators that all of us in the House are getting. I am sure my colleagues on the other side are getting similar responses from their constituents as well.

In fact, the Conservative MPP for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound stayed in the legislature in Toronto, along with a fellow member of the Conservative Party. I know the MP from that riding as well has said on other occasions that he thinks it is the wrong tax. Unfortunately he has not decided to vote against it on behalf of his constituents. I guess that is a decision one always has to make.

I have heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga most of the day say numerous things about the tax package that is before the Ontario Parliament. On a couple of occasions he has actually mentioned that the tax revenue in the province of Ontario will go down. I would remind him that the deficit in Ontario is approaching $25 billion. If this tax were such a great tax that drives revenue down, which I am not so sure that I buy, but if indeed it does, which government in its right mind would impose a tax regime that would decrease its revenue at a time when it cannot afford to pay the bills as it is?

That would be the same as saying that I would like my mortgage to be $100 a month but I only want to make $85 a month so that I cannot pay it. I do not think anybody around here would do that. In fact I am sure the government would scold us and say that we do not understand how to balance our chequebooks. Clearly the member from Mississauga does not understand how to balance a chequebook if he is saying the revenue stream is going to go below what is needed to actually balance the budget. It makes no sense.

There is the debate on the other side. There is the yin and yang of this debate. We are told, “Trust us. It will create jobs and prosperity”. I heard that in the 1980s, and it was called the free trade agreement. What did we get as workers? We got jobs that disappeared by the thousands and now the hundreds of thousands and wages that either went down or stagnated. If the government is going to create prosperity the same way as was done with the free trade agreement, then I am afraid it is a sham.

It is a sham on the constituents that I represent, on Ontarians and British Columbians, perpetrated by a government that basically is going to take those poor taxpayers to the cleaners. I use the word “poor” purposely because indeed they are poor. The constituents in my riding are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. For members to stand in this House and suggest that somehow we will be better off because of this is utter nonsense. It is about time they learned tax policy and economics. I am guessing that a lot of them did not pass economics 101.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole world is demanding action on climate change. That is exactly what the NDP asked for and proposed in its Bill C-311.

Yet the Conservatives are treating Copenhagen the same way the Liberals signed Kyoto: as a big public relations stunt, nothing more. We need action, but the government does not have a plan, nor is it taking concrete action.

When will this government show real environmental leadership for Canada?

Comments by Member for Ottawa South

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, at 12:04 p.m., I raised a point of order regarding a false statement made November 20 in the House by the member for Ottawa South on Bill C-311. He stated that it was not two weeks ago that his colleague, referencing me, the critic for the NDP, was in agreement with the extension of 30 days in committee as it was extremely important to hear other expert witnesses. This is, by the way, a complete falsehood. I had voted against the extension and had spoken very clearly in the committee and outside. I wanted an expedited review and vote on that bill.

To my knowledge, the member has not yet withdrawn this false statement and I seek your intervention, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this request.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you very much.

Let me deal with that in a couple of ways. I will come to the clean energy dialogue. As you know, at the last visit on the part of the Prime Minister and me and Minister Cannon and others to Washington, the Secretary of Energy in the United States, Steven Chu, and I provided a report detailing what has been done under the clean energy dialogue.

Let me go back to the essential issue of whether the targets and the approach that Canada is following are sufficiently ambitious. I know that this committee has been wrestling with Bill C-311 and will continue to, and I would just emphasize that given the structure of our economy, our climate, our geography, and the nature of our industrial base, we need to have targets that are aligned with our major trading partner and we need an approach, as represented by the clean energy dialogue, that is aligned with our major trading partner.

If you look at what's taken place around the world in terms of the targets that other countries are agreeing to, Canada's target is, in fact, very ambitious. Our 2020 target is to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 from a 2006 baseline. If you compare that to President Obama's provisional target—and it is provisional upon Senate action in the United States, and provisional on an international binding agreement that applies to all major emitters—the United States is talking about minus 17%. So we are consistent.

If you look at what the European Union is proposing, their targets are equivalent, essentially, to minus 14% from a 2005 level. So again the targets that we are talking about in Canada are quite consistent.

What Bill C-311 puts forward is the notion that Canada would double our reduction targets for 2020 to what is essentially minus 39% below 2005. If our country did that—and I caution the members of the committee on this, because I know you're dealing with this bill—our target would be completely out of line with the targets of all of the other major industrial democracies with whom we compete. This could be done only at an exceedingly high economic cost that is completely out of line with the cost that other countries have found to be acceptable.

If you look even at the most recent Pembina Institute-David Suzuki report, they quantified the cost as being up to 3.2% of GDP. Look at the analysis in the United States. What the United States is prepared to take on as an economic cost is something in the order of 1% of GDP. The European Union targets are in the order of 1% of GDP. All of this is chronicled and detailed in economic analyses in those jurisdictions.

What's being proposed in Bill C-311—the committee needs to know this before you vote on it—is that Canada would take on economic costs that no other industrial country is taking on at the climate change table in Copenhagen. So be careful with this. These targets are completely incompatible with the principles of U.S. harmonization, with which, frankly, everyone I speak with in this country is, broadly speaking, in accord.

All of the premiers support this. All of the environment ministers are consistently talking about the importance of harmonization with the United States, not damaging our economy. Industry is in agreement, and the ENGOs have been in agreement with how we go about that. So that's a caution on that.

In terms of the clean energy dialogue, my friend points out that carbon capture and storage is a critical part of this. We are working together with the United States on carbon capture and storage, the definition and building of a smart grid for the electricity system. These are two extremely important initiatives.

Carbon capture and storage holds the promise of reducing emissions from coal-burning thermal plants. In the next 25 years there will be over 2,000 new coal-burning thermal plants built on the planet--that's 2,000. Some of those will replace existing stock, but reducing our emissions into the atmosphere is largely about constraining coal emissions. CCS is the only known technology that can reduce those emissions, and Canada should lead the way.

And on a per capita basis, no one in the world is investing more in carbon capture and storage than the Canadian federal and provincial governments together.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for being here. You've already been thanked, but not a lot of people realize how busy you are. I do. I realize you had to adjust your very busy schedule.

The committee has been listening to witnesses on Bill C-311, the NDP bill. We heard from every witness that the approach to having a continental, harmonized North American approach was bang on. They all recommended that. There was discussion on the targets, and if you accept a harmonized continental approach, is it realistic to have different targets from the U.S.?

We heard from industry with our last group of witnesses that it could kill our economy, particularly our economic recovery. Everybody said harmonized approach.

I would like you to share a little bit of what has happened since the visit to Canada by President Obama, meeting with our Prime Minister. What has happened since that February visit? Things have changed. There's been a lot of progress. I'm particularly interested in the priority of developing and deploying clean energy technologies. Canada is really excited about what we're doing on carbon capture and storage. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

The other priority is building a more efficient electricity grid based on cleaner renewable generation and expanding clean energy research and development. How important is that?

These are all important to the world. When I was in Copenhagen five weeks ago and in Berlin a year and a half ago, we heard how the world is depending on Canada to develop and commercialize carbon capture and storage. We are a world leader.

Per capita, what kind of contribution is Canada making compared to the rest of the world in some of these incredible technologies the world is relying on? How important is having a harmonized approach, and what is happening? Could you update us on that?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I will respond in English, if I may.

There certainly has been a great deal of work done with the provinces. You referred to a common front. Certainly, as you are aware, in order to prepare for Copenhagen, I've met with every single premier and every single environment minister over the close of the summer, in essentially face-to-face discussions.

My sense, based on that, is that there is actually quite a degree of commonality among Canadian provinces relative to climate change. I think there's a general acceptance that there is a need for a national climate change approach, one that respects the jurisdictions and roles of the provinces. There is a view that the approach should be fair and equitable and that there should be credit for early action. In particular, it should be an approach that is harmonized with the United States.

I think it's fair to say that this was something that was mentioned to me by every single premier with whom I met, the importance of harmonizing our efforts relative to greenhouse gases on a continental basis. Of course, that's entirely consistent with the government's policy objectives. Our approach to climate change must be harmonized on a continental basis.

Frankly, the concern that we have with Bill C-311 is that it does exactly the opposite. Bill C-311 proposes targets that are entirely discordant with the United States, making it extremely difficult--if not impossible--to implement on a North American basis. We are talking about a continentalized cap and trade system that involves absolute emission reductions, not intensity targets.

So to correct you, there is no suggestion that we are talking about the kinds of intensity targets that you might have seen in Turning the Corner. We are speaking about a cap and trade system.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right. Voyons donc, as they say.

Mr. Minister, the Waxman-Markey bill, which was introduced less than five months ago in the American Senate, is a 1,428-page plan for the United States.

I've done a complete search of that bill, sir, and there's not a single reference to the word “Canada” in 1,428 pages.

To my knowledge, there's not a single reference to the word “Mexico” in 1,428 pages.

Sir, we've had 33 witnesses come to this committee and speak to us on Bill C-311, which is linked to your energy dialogue in supplementary estimates (B) because you keep talking about a dialogue. We've asked all 33 witnesses on Bill C-311 whether they have in their possession a plan, have seen a plan, could share a plan. Thirty-two of those witnesses have categorically stated there is no plan.

The only witness who has stated there's a plan was your employee, who came here and said that one-page statement was a plan--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing today.

Canadians who are tuning in and listening to the hearings today might get the impression that what this committee is discussing is the government's climate change policy. We're in fact talking about Bill C-311, which is the NDP's bill with respect to climate change. While we appreciate the general discussion on climate change policy, we could have been talking, for example, about the Liberals' failure to meet their minus 20% target over 1988 emissions by 2005 that was in their first red book, for example. But we're not here to talk about that. We are talking about Bill C-311.

Mr. Lloyd, I appreciate your comments with respect to the accelerated capital cost allowance, not only to inform the work this committee does but because of course we are in pre-budget discussions with respect to the upcoming budget in the new year. I assume that you've already made a presentation to that committee, but we can certainly make that a discussion as well. I will point out that it was originally a unanimous resolution by the industry committee that was supported by all parties. Unfortunately, the three opposition parties at one time or another have voted against those measures in budgets.

Going on to Bill C-311, one of the things we've heard in testimony already before this committee, which I think is very important.... It's not the government's opinion; it was an industry opinion. We had the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Environment Northeast before this committee talking about the negative consequences of widely dissimilar targets between Canada and the United States.

Just to get us onto a page where we are comparing apples to apples, the Government of Canada's target, translated to a 1990 baseline, is roughly minus 3%. The U.S. target, depending on which one you take.... Neither target reaches minus 10%. It's a single digit over 1990. The NDP's targets are about minus 25% over 1990 levels by 2020.

Both organizations talked about serious trade problems that could arise and said that this could create political problems as well. I think one of them they mentioned was the flow of investment out of Canada and into the United States if we had a significantly more rigorous target within a cap-and-trade system than the United States.

Can you comment on what widely dissimilar targets within that kind of system would mean to your industries? Can you confirm whether that would mean a capital outflow for the purchase of credits, for example, on the U.S. side, where it might be cheaper? Can you walk us through what that will mean for your sectors?

Mr. Boag, I don't know if you want to start. Or maybe Mr. Lloyd does.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

I think what we've seen is that the targets, whether we're talking about the Bill C-311 targets or these targets proposed by the government, are nothing unless there are concrete measures and proper help for achieving the kinds of things we're trying to do.