Evidence of meeting #21 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Why do we need a motion to adjourn? I thought the meeting was for a scheduled time. Wouldn't we need a motion to continue? We have other committees and other commitments. Why make these scheduled meetings if we can't keep to them?
The Clerk of the Committee
The end times for scheduled meetings are for administrative purposes. The meetings are convened at the call of the chair and are ended with the consent of the committee.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I need a five-minute recess to cancel all my appointments that I had set up for the rest of the day. I think all of us have to cancel appointments; I don't know about others, but I certainly have some. Maybe nobody else has any.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The end time that I have in mind would be presumably one o'clock, as we continue.
We'll suspend for five minutes to allow members to make whatever administrative arrangements they need to make.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Let's reconvene. We will carry on in this room. International Trade is moving to room 362 in the East Block, for anybody who may be on the wrong bus.
We are back in session, please. We're still dealing with—
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just want to set the record straight on something, Mr. Chair.
I had the opportunity to review the report that I referenced, and actually Mr. Godfrey and other members of the committee and other people asked for a copy of the report. I was correct on the amount per household—approximately $10,000—that it would cost to implement Kyoto. The report does specify that it would cost up to $38 billion to implement Kyoto, but that was actually based on prior evidence. I know from speaking to some of the members of the committee that they heard the $90 billion figure too, so we're doing research on that.
I would be prepared, obviously, to provide that. The report is on IntraParl, but to any member of the committee who would like that report, as well as those who have already asked for it, I will provide it to you, and I will provide the additional evidence I found as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you for straightening out the record.
The next amendment is NDP-15.2. Before I call that, Mr. Cullen, I do have some concerns about the admissibility of that one, for the same reasons we have had concerns with past ones with regard to financial obligations. I'll just point that out.
I call upon you to move the motion. Then we can have some debate on it, and then I'll make a ruling on it.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a principle that we have long advocated for within the NDP, that when there are policy changes that happen within an industry that come from the federal government, there be some consideration of a transition fund or something that would be put in place to allow workers affected by those policy changes to transition into another form of work. This, obviously, draws upon the employment insurance fund, which has garnered more than $50 billion in excess over the last decade or so. It's certainly not a challenge of allocation of funds, because the funds are available and the funds are meant to do things like this.
While I appreciate your comments in terms of admissibility, we also know that we've seen the government start to talk about some similar measures, that there would be some transitioning. There has been a huge impact already in the auto sector, unrelated to government policy, in Canada right now. We've pushed for policies that would encourage investment in the Canadian auto sector, knowing that when we talk about the auto industry or when we talk about the large electrical power production or upstream oil and gas, there are transitions away from some of the more polluting industries into some of the cleaner industries, and some of those things will require investment in transition for families.
Two things that are interesting to know—and this has been raised in testimony that came forward from the Canadian Labour Congress—are, one, that the more efficient economy is a more work-intensive economy, a more labour-intensive economy where people are put to work; and two, the union that represents what has been a lightning rod for much of this debate, perhaps fairly or unfairly, the oil sands projects in northern Alberta, is one of the first unions that signed on to the endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol and the process of our meeting those targets.
When the workers directly impacted and affected by those very industries are looking for a more balanced approach to the environment and the economy, we think it's just responsible of government to put in place things like transition funds. So if you eventually do deem this out of order and we move on, then that's fine, but certainly we implore all the parties in the debate, and particularly, in this instance, the government, to see that these types of considerations need to be made—not the one-offs and half-offs, but an actual industrial strategy that allows people to transition out of those more polluting industries.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, because this would require spending, it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I believe it would be inadmissible and I would seek your ruling.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have two points, Mr. Chair.
The language of NDP-15.2 says, “The Governor in Council may establish a greenhouse gas reduction Transition Fund to provide transition assistance”. I note that when we were debating Bill C-288, on page 4, it was ruled by the Speaker that references to the idea that there might be measures that include ones “to provide for a just transition for workers affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions” did not imply a royal recommendation.
I realize the wording in Bill C-288 is not the same as it is in amendment NDP-15.2. I'm just wondering how we square the non-royal recommendation acceptance by the Speaker of the phrase “just transition fund” and the fact that this is simply a possibility for the government—it's not a “shall” recommendation—with possibly ruling it out of order.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would not want the committee to believe that I will necessarily support the NDP motion, but it seems that the wording of the motion is in order. In fact, the possibility of establishing a fund does not directly create the fund. It seems to me that the NDP considered the issue from several angles and made sure that the amendment was appropriate and in order. I do not want to go into detail, but I think that the NDP worked on the proposal to make sure it was in order. We are not saying that the governor in council will have to create this fund; that would only be an option.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The one point is that my friend referred to people in northern Alberta as needing transitional funding. I don't know who wrote this for the NDP, but it states “affected by fuel consumption standard requirements”. I just want to make the point that I don't see how many of the sectors of the country that would be affected by climate change and greenhouse gases would be affected by the fuel consumption standard. Notwithstanding that I wouldn't support this, I would suggest that any legislator would deal with the direct ramifications of it and would exclude 99% of other people who would be affected by that. That would be my opinion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you for that.
Part 1 of Bill C-30 does deal with amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The amendment proposes a new section that gives the Governor in Council the authority to establish a greenhouse gas reduction transition fund to provide assistance in the form of grants to affected workers and communities.
The bill was referred to committee before second reading, which means there is more latitude in the amending process. The requirement that amendments must fall within the scope of the bill does not apply to bills referred before second reading. However, other rules of admissibility do apply. The rule against infringing on the financial initiative of the Crown is one of those.
You've heard this before. It's expressed on page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit:
An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.
The one referred to, referred to elements of a plan. In my view, this one refers to direct spending by the government. To me it's clear that by proposing to establish a new fund for the provision of grants, the amendment is increasing the charge on the Public Treasury and it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I find that the amendment infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. On that basis I will rule it inadmissible.
Shall we move on?
We'll move on to amendment NDP-15.3.
Mr. Cullen, are you prepared to move NDP-15.3?