Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Can we take our places again, please?

We are back in session. I apologize for taking so long, but we had to go back 18 years with respect to the admissibility of a similar item. It's on page 898 in Marleau and Montpetit, under “Similar Items”:

In a 1989 ruling, Speaker Fraser clarified that for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must have the same purpose and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means. Thus, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if their approaches to the issue are different, the Chair could deem them to be sufficiently distinct.

The question has arisen whether a private Member's bill which is similar to a government bill may be placed on the Order Paper and debated.

In this case, it's the other way around.

The authorities and past rulings show that there is nothing to prevent such similar items from being placed on the Order Paper simultaneously.

The private member's bill in question is a stand-alone piece of legislation. The amendment here is in a different bucket, if you will. It's in the context of a larger piece of legislation. In the chair's view, that makes it distinct and it can be debated.

Resuming debate, we'll go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Perhaps a point of departure for the committee to debate this motion might be that if there are objections to the targets the NDP has put forward—specifically, 25% of 1990 levels by the year 2020, which is important, and a long-term target of 80% of 1990 levels by 2050—then I would be curious to know what other targets they're proposing. Do they want to seek an amendment to this or to perhaps make some other change? If there's another target, as a percentage of 1990 levels, that people seek to have, upon what evidence do the other members of the committee wish to base that target?

We very specifically looked to particularly the long-term target and said that this is what the science has been telling us about an overall two-degree warming, with us being perhaps beyond the tipping point once we go beyond two or three degrees. Particularly, the European Union has done extensive work, as has the UN. There is a doubling effect that happens, almost a multiplier effect. As the changes increase, it becomes more and more difficult to try to rein in overall temperature increases on the planet. This two-degree increase has been picked by Prime Minister Blair and others who are seriously fighting climate change, and this 80% target is directly linked to that two-degree rise.

I know the parliamentary secretary has some opinions. If committee members choose to deny this particular amendment's veracity, then what evidence are they using to suggest some other solution for Canada's particular problem that we're in right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We do agree with the science that says greenhouse gas emissions have increased dramatically, and that short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets are necessary. The short-term targets will be released by the government within weeks.

At this committee and in testimony received at other committees as part of the Bill C-30 legislative review, we did hear that there were approximately 13 years of inaction from the previous Liberal government, which left us approximately 35% above the target. We did hear from the testimony, based on science, that these targets would have been good in 1998. It would have been good and possible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions down to those targets if action had been taken. We did hear testimony, based on science, that it would be extremely difficult to meet those targets without destroying the economy.

Chair, I believe what is being suggested here in amendment NDP-15.1 is not based on science but on politics. I do agree that targets need to be set, in the short, medium, and long term. We need to work with our international partners to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to set targets and achieve those targets. The targets have to be set on a realistic balance between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. But as I said earlier, I believe the targets that are before us are set politically and are not based on science. That's the testimony we heard. Unfortunately, there is rhetoric in this motion, NDP-15.1, and it's not based on science.

We want to have a clear action, an action that is based on achievable targets and that does reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's easy for the opposition to set political targets. They're not in government. We don't have an analysis of what the costs and the impacts of these targets would be.

Within the amendments from the Liberals, they acknowledge that they would be putting people out of work and shutting down industry, and they've built in a transition fund. We want a healthy environment, we want a healthy economy, we want that balance, and we want targets set based on science, not politics.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I was just talking with some of the observers of this committee during our break. Some were encouraged by the committee's ability to work together to get something done.

I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's opinion that there may be other targets required, but to just blatantly suggest that these are not based on science, when that's contrary to the evidence that came forward—In terms of what is required, what is scientifically required to avoid dangerous climate change on this planet was put forward by a number of scientists.

I'll take up the one point he made. If they want to have a debate about a different target, then bring the numbers. We put down some numbers, as the NDP has done for a number of years now, to encourage the debate and allow other parties to come forward with their best suggestions. That was the very reason for forming this committee, to allow the best ideas forward.

I think the parliamentary secretary should resist the temptation to run back to this old argument that these are politically motivated targets. If he has science-based evidence to suggest that dangerous climate change can be avoided by setting another target of greenhouse gas reductions and he has someone he can refer to and say, “This is what the science is telling us is actually a more appropriate target”, then bring it forward. That's the debate we're trying to encourage here. But going into suggestions of political motivations to set a target that was told to us by scientists is wrong.

In terms of economic analysis, I think this is important, because one of the main criticisms by the Conservatives of the target initially set by Canada, of 6% below 1990 by the 2012 session, was the lack of economic analysis. To then watch this very same government, this week, as the minister came forward....

I remember in the previous week, when I asked what was the economic analysis done of their “feebate” program, their program to give incentives to some vehicles and not others, and which ones were on the list, the government hadn't even compiled a list of which cars were meant to be penalized or what the economic impacts for those cars that were manufactured in Canada might be. So there were absolutely no politics involved in making sure that two of the autos, made in the riding right adjacent to the finance minister's, both gas guzzlers, both now meant to go on some sort of fuel that exists only at one gas station in the entire country...to say that it was based on science or sound economic analysis is absolutely ridiculous.

So if the parliamentary secretary or the other members of the Conservative Party at this table wish to have sound economic analysis, then they certainly must bring in policies along the way that also pass that test, because so far, in the effort given by the feebate program, with not even a list that Canadians can refer to, to know which cars are going to be penalized and which cars are going to be encouraged, and then not to have any analysis of the penalties on those cars made in Canada or the minivans that people are looking to buy, which will be penalized by this program, as they take their kids to soccer practice....

It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that when looking at amendment NDP-15.1 there's rhetoric in this motion, that there's some sort of political motivation to the targets chosen. If the parliamentary secretary would like to debate targets, or if any members of this committee would like to suggest an alternative target, then bring that forward. But to simply rely on some sort of jingoistic phrase that these are motivated by political aspirations is wrong. It takes us down a very dangerous path. If this committee is actually looking to achieve something positive and constructive for the country, then let's have a substantive debate. Let's not move the debate into some realm of political motivation versus others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I've heard the science, and I have a science degree. Science is a very important aspect of all climate change, and I think of the environment generally, but is that the only premise he relies upon in making his argument? Canada is responsible for around 2%—and most people say a little less than 2%—of total GHG emissions. But most of the information we've received, including from the experts we received testimony from, suggested that to meet our Kyoto targets in the 2008-2012 commitment period, we would, in essence, have to shut down most of our industries.

Is he suggesting that we only rely on science to find the basis for these targets, or is he suggesting that we have a balanced approach, a balance with the environment, a balance with the economy, a balance with Canadian standards of living?

China, for instance, is responsible for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, and India is somewhere in the same area, but their increase in greenhouse gas emissions on a yearly basis is more than we will ever be able to cut out of our emissions. I'm not suggesting we have to make our decision on what China, India, or other developing countries do, but are we to use a balanced approach here?

I think we should have a general discussion in relation to this and on the targets themselves. Are we to use a balanced approach from what we heard in the testimony of many people?

We heard it could cost up to $80 billion to meet our Kyoto targets by 2012, which means in essence somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000 to $10,000 per household in Canada. Is that the intention of the member, that we meet the targets based on that and science only?

I just think we have to have a general discussion. This is a very important part of the legislation. I think it's important that we have short-term targets. This government has a mandate and will be coming forward with short-term targets in the near future. I understand the member's consideration and desire to get this out of the way, but in the past we had a Liberal government that didn't do anything for a long period of time, and now we're stuck, in essence, with a horrendous situation.

What I really want to know is, do we rely solely on science to find what we should reach? In my consideration of what you've said, we would then have to shut down everything. The lights should turn off in this place, the air conditioning should turn off, and we should not drive another motor vehicle or take another plane, train, or automobile anywhere in this country, if we are to meet our targets based on science.

So I would like to hear if there is a balanced mechanism in what he's suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I can appreciate Mr. Jean's question and comments. The argument that's being presented is one we've seen formulated by the current government for some time, that the economic sky is falling when Canada seeks to honour its Kyoto obligations.

To be very clear, there are three significant pieces to his question that are flawed in their argumentation.

One, in terms of the 2% contribution, that we should simply rely on what that contribution means to the overall impact of the world's contribution to climate change, the same argument is never used by the government when talking about the Afghan mission or Canada's contribution to world security, that while we're making a small contribution to the so-called war on terror in overall numbers, we still feel that contribution is important, that the government of the day sees that contribution of 2,500 soldiers to a force of some 200,000, when you combine most of the security missions, as significant.

Let's dismiss the notion, first and foremost, that because Canada contributes 2%, the motivation to do the serious things and make the hard decisions is not as strong as it should be. It is equally strong, regardless of whether you're in the United States or in Canada or in western Europe and encouraging the developing countries to come on.

Second, if you looked at proposed subsection 64.1(4), this is what we call the large polluters' target. This we deem to be fairness, because we heard from a lot of the industrial sector that when they assumed Canada was actually going to do something about its obligations under this climate change protocol, many of them started making the changes. Some of them chose not to. We deem it only to be fair that 6% below whatever the sector was producing in 1990 for those 2012 targets seems to be their fair share. It seems ridiculous that there is some notion floating out that the upstream oil and gas sector, for example, which is doing well profit-wise, would not also contribute to the solutions of some of the problems they're creating in the generation of that profit. That just seems to make sense to me, and to many others.

The fundamental question that Mr. Jean brings forward is the unhooking of the “economy versus the environment” debate that we must see ourselves past. We must. We simply can no longer, with any veracity, come forward to Canadians and say there's going to be a choice here and that it's one or the other. That argument has been broken down. We heard representation at this committee and others from other nations that have seized this issue, aggressively and with intelligence, and set hard targets for their big polluters and set meaningful changes in place through government policy to help bring their countries back into line on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs.

We have to step beyond the rhetoric of this economic collapse when looking at the issue of climate change, because as he well knows—and hopefully he'll visit this summer up in Skeena—Bulkley Valley—the fishing industry, for example, is right now witnessing changes that they have never seen before. The economic impact of that environmental change is difficult to calculate. When the forestry sector estimates there just won't be a pine tree in British Columbia by 2050, how, exactly, do you give proper analysis and accounting for what that economic devastation will look like for logging communities all across Canada, never mind just British Columbia? When the mining sector has to shut down 30% of its travel days because the ice roads no longer form up, or their mines flood in areas where they've never received any significant rainfall, how do you...?

When you start to add up the economic cost of what's happening.... And this is why Sir Nicholas Stern came forward with his report—and he's not exactly a left-leaning economist. He said the effects of this incidence on our world economy—and this has an impact on Canada, I would suggest, more so than on other countries—is equivalent to the Great Depression and the First World War combined in terms of economic devastation.

We must decouple. We must remove the issues—as if there is one or the other presented to Canadians. I frankly don't think Canadians buy it, first of all, and second, I don't think it bears up under scrutiny. We have seen too many examples.

I will not dispute Mr. Jean's comment about our being late and about inaction from previous governments causing us to be in a pickle when it comes to our targets. The only one advantage that we have in the inaction and the delay and the dithering and all those things that we well know of from the previous government is that we've seen examples of what works in other nations. We've seen them try things, fail on some things, and have other things succeed, in terms of programs and policies that work.

The evidence is there in front of us. For this government, or any government, to choose not to base our new policies upon that evidence would just be foolhardy and arrogant, frankly. If you have evidence that's gone out before you on a national scale in other jurisdictions, in economies that are energy-based as well, and met with success in making sure they reduced their greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging economic growth....

I have one last point, Mr. Chair, on the national retrofit program that the NDP has been suggesting for a long time now. The total job creation of such a program in changing the national building codes in Canada and encouraging Canadians—and I mean through both taxes and financial incentives—to get on board and actually reduce the amount of energy they consume in their houses and their places of work—The actual economic multiplier of that is absolutely extraordinary, therefore completely debunking the myth that it's got to be one or the other. It's a false dichotomy. I just don't think that Canadians will hold the environment to ransom for some precluded Chicken Little scenario that we just believe is fundamentally false.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I get the impression that we're launching into long political speeches. It's important during clause-by-clause consideration, but you'd think we were in the House of Commons.

The amendment tabled today by the NDP is important. First I'd like to divide this amendment in two as it deals with the discussions we had about reduction targets and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, but also with medium and long term objectives.

I want to indicate to the committee that at first blush, we are in favour of the first part of amendment NDP-15.1, insofar as a bit further, namely in amendment BQ-10, we proposed similar targets. The actual debates on greenhouse emission objectives will inevitably have to be done in the framework of BQ-10. Of course we can broach the subject as we discuss NDP-15.1, given that it includes targets.

I would like to say to the government members that it is possible to achieve the Kyoto objectives. Europe has proven that it was possible to minimize the impact of the application of the Kyoto Protocol on our economies. It's a matter of implementing strong mechanisms as provided for in the protocol. I am thinking among other things of the credit exchange system and the carbon market.

Mr. Chairman, Europe has demonstrated that the Kyoto objectives could be achieved when the right instruments and the right approaches were put in place. Europe will attain its Kyoto objectives and the impact will be less than 0.1% of its GDP. That's proof that the objectives of Kyoto set for 2008-2012 can still be achieved and that we must go even further. Indeed, if one thing was clearly stated by our witnesses during the consideration of Bill C-30, it was that we cannot be satisfied with the long-term measures as proposed by the current government. That objective will be on the order of 60 to 80% by 2050.

Almost all the witnesses who appeared before this committee told us that we needed short, medium and long term objectives. We must therefore set that kind of objective. The NDP proposals, with regard to the first part of the amendment, are interesting ones and in any case they can be found a little later in amendment BQ-10.

I want to emphasize the fact that achieving Kyoto objectives and rigorous medium and long term objectives depends on the approach that Canada chooses. And that's why amendment NDP-15.1 is of some concern to me. What's been proposed here is more or less a sectorial approach, that is an approach based on industrial sectors. Yet, that has not produced significant results when it comes to attaining Kyoto objectives, simply because it does not take into account a number of parameters, among other things the energy positioning of one region compared to another. We can all agree that Quebec's energy position is not the same as that of Alberta and our industries don't necessarily use the same sources of energy. In Quebec, 90% of our electricity is produced hydraulically.

Moreover, the economic structure is not the same from coast to coast. One must acknowledge that in western Canada, the economy is based on fossil fuels. The auto industry is mainly concentrated in Ontario. The basis of the Quebec economy is the manufacturing industry. Given that the economic structure is not the same throughout Canada, we need an approach that takes that reality into account.

Moreover, demographics, gains in efficiency and the renewable energy potential are not the same everywhere.

Consequently, we cannot support an amendment which does not guarantee that the provinces which want to apply a territorial approach would not be able to do so. If these provinces give guarantees to Ottawa that they intend to respect the greenhouse gas reduction objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, this amendment, if adopted as worded, would not give them the possibility to apply their own, equivalent, plan.

Let me go back in time a bit and remind you of the debate surrounding Bill C-288. What did we say about the bill? We proposed an approach based on the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol. But let's think back to the NDP's position on Bill C-288's proposed territorial approach. Mr. Chairman, it took a lot of convincing before receiving the support of the Liberal Party of Canada, because the amendment which was proposed by the Bloc Québécois only proposed a single option, that is, the territorial approach.

Today, we are studying amendment NDP-15, and history might repeat itself. If we pass this amendment, we risk adopting a sectoral approach without receiving a guarantee from the NDP that provinces which respect, and which commit to upholding the Kyoto Protocol, will be able to take a territorial approach.

Even though my colleague, Mr. Cullen, showed more openness today than he did with regard to the proposed amendment contained in Bill C-288, and despite the fact that amendment NDP-15.1 integrates the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and sets rigorous objectives which we will adhere to, we do not believe that the preferred approach will necessarily lead to reaching those objectives.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One important piece—and this is going straight to Mr. Jean's concerns—was around addressing the short-term targets. The false debate that we can't allow to continue is that all action taken under Kyoto was meant to be taken domestically only. There was never any such negotiation under the protocol. Canada, the United States, Australia, and Europe all insisted that there be several tools in the toolbox for countries to achieve their targets, understanding that some of these changes are difficult to make.

There are two other significant options for the domestic targets in terms of doing them all in-house. One was the international credit option, which I know the Conservatives have an ideological opposition to but which other countries are successfully using. It fits in well with the clean development mechanism, and I believe it fits in well with Canada's long-term overseas development and strategic goals. It also combines well with the export of Canadian technology, which is how we use much of our overseas aid right now.

The government should be much more open than it has been to this point, and we've seen some movement from the minister. He was here only last week, and in scrumming with the press afterwards, he was claiming that he is open to the concept of CDM, open to the concept of this clean development mechanism.

The second thing is the application of missed targets to the second phase. This government and the minister have claimed that they will engage in the second phase vigorously, the second round of targets. Kyoto is partly designed and built so that you can encroach upon that second phase with more restrictive targets. If the government is truly serious about making these structural changes on the domestic front, this is one of the ways open to them.

The government simply can't, by its own decision, limit the options it chooses to use and then go back to Canadians and say it didn't have any options, that it only had this one and this option was too severe. It's a patently false argument to see several tools available and to just choose not to pick them up.

In terms of Mr. Bigras' point, it's well taken and understood on what was built into Bill C-288 to give the government some options. The reason we have some conflict with the territoriality—and I've explained this in private, but I'll put it on the record—is that with certain things, particularly the carbon market that has been proposed in Montreal and in some suggestions from Toronto, when you don't take a sectoral approach, when you don't have a hard cap on particular industries, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand and figure out how the carbon market works. It's not as clear or clean.

We have also done some analysis showing that Quebec will do very well under the sectoral approach. As he pointed out, much of the energy produced and consumed in Quebec comes with very few greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the industry in Quebec, in manufacturing or some of the other sectors, will not be taking a significantly larger hit when you look at things sectorally.

I understand that there might be some ideological reasons and bases for the argument, but we've looked at both. If there's some language that you would like to suggest that would open up some options for government, we're seeking that type of consensus around the table. We're trying to find places where we can all agree. The fundamental point is that this option really does give clear accounting for Canadians. It does allow the government to put forward a plan and then be judged by that plan in a most public way.

As Mr. Warawa pointed out earlier, that was the thing most lacking under the previous government. It was very difficult to account for actions. Canadians were left wandering in the dark in terms of what was actually getting done, and the results were actually quite tragic and have become increasingly expensive.

Committee members must appreciate this. The longer we delay and put off the setting of those firm targets, allowing business and communities to respond, the more expensive this process gets, because we must do this thing. We absolutely must.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Jean]

Thank you.

We had two hands waving at the same time, but Mr. McGuinty has not spoken on it yet. I'll go to Mr. McGuinty first and then to Mr. Jean.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to be mercifully brief and suggest that in general we support the discussion on targets. We'd like to see the bill speak to targets, which is why we have woven targets into our amendment L-21.1.

I would suggest to the committee and all members that we should probably move forward so that we can get to this issue. We've heard different positions on targets. We're in favour of targets. Let's move on. That's my suggestion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I needed to respond, Mr. Chair, to some things the NDP member said. I was quite surprised by some of it, because he sat on the same environment committee I did over the last three years and knows some of the things that have happened and taken place.

I know about the pine beetle, and there's no question that if the pine beetle had been taken care of 10 years ago, when the size of the infestation was only as large as Parliament Hill, it would have taken maybe $100,000—though I'm not sure how much. It took this Conservative government to invest $1 billion in that.

I know about Kyoto and that it reflects the countries responsible for approximately 30% of greenhouse gases in the world, whereas the G-8 plus 5 represents countries emitting 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, he mentioned the U.S. and Australia and why they signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. Well, they're not part of that protocol any more, for practical reasons. Europe is in a different position from Canada and a different position from the United States. They have an economy that collapsed in eastern Germany and as a result they were easily able to meet their commitments—and in fact have excess to sell to other countries such as Canada, which costs taxpayers in Canada tremendous amounts of money. That's why, I would suggest, Australia and the United States pulled out and joined the G-8 plus 5. It's because Europe was definitely a winner under Kyoto, and will be a winner under any of these targets he is suggesting today.

One consideration that's not been brought forward by the member.... I know he said that we shouldn't consider the economy at all, as greenhouse gases have gone too far—which I agree have gone too far—but I think we have to take into consideration the economy. We drive further in Canada than anyone else in the world; we have a colder climate than almost anywhere else in the world, and we are a primary producer. So we are distinctly different from Europe and other countries, which are easily going to meet the Kyoto Protocol. As well, they negotiated much better than we did at that point. I would suggest that most people who are aware of this know that. Indeed, Canada had much more stringent targets, but based upon our cold environment, our longer distances, and our being a primary producer, it was almost impossible to meet those targets—and we are being penalized.

We have heard from both sides on this issue, and I agree that we should lead, but we should also have considerations of what else is happening. We heard from experts on how much it's going to cost Canadians. We heard from experts on what we would have to do; in essence, what I heard is that we'd have to shut down our economy to meet those targets. That is a consideration I think government has to look at, because it is an issue of balance.

From what I heard from the member, in essence, the NDP is not worried at all about the economy and the economy should not be considered at all in this; it should just be based on science and the ramifications should, in essence, be dealt with by the Canadian taxpayer, as usual, based on bad decisions.

What I heard from the Bloc was in essence that it should be a territorial approach, because Quebec has hydro power, and that we shouldn't look at it as a country. Quebec certainly has advantages under that, because they're not the primary producer that other parts of the country are—and on which our economy, quite frankly, relies.

I understand why the Liberals want to move on, because they're ashamed of their record. Quite frankly, nothing was done for 10 years under the targets they imposed, so I understand why they want to move on and not talk about it, because it continuously brings up the fact that they did nothing even though they set their own targets.

I think we need to have this conversation and that we have to have a balance. As well, we have to have the discussion on what tools we're going to use and what balance we're going to have with these tools to affect the changes we want ultimately.

I agree with the member, but I have one final question, as I noticed he wants to raise his hand. Why is the NDP opposing a budget that brings forward such good things as fuel efficiency?

He talked about learning from examples. Europe has brought in fuel efficiency standards, and we brought those forward as a government, yet he's opposed to them. He's opposed to retrofits. He's opposed to this government's environmental plan. I don't understand why he says today that we should learn the lessons from around the world—which this government has done—and impose great new policies, and yet his party opposes the budget that brings in those great things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

While I won't disagree with Mr. McGuinty, we'll keep going, Mr. Cullen. But I will remind folks that it's a quarter to eleven.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate the chair's sense of urgency. We have moved more than five motions to get the thing done. The only Liberal comment was to move on. I was hoping for a bit more substance from them on this, but that's okay.

On the question Mr. Jean raised in terms of the stringency of Canada's target and that we have to drive, well, we were driving a lot more than anybody else before 1990. We were producing a lot of oil and gas. We were doing many of the things we're doing now. If you start to look at where the places have changed—and he knows very well where the places have changed—we are actually consuming less heat than we were.

So let's get off what I think is a fundamentally useless debate of trying to backcast in time, saying that this happened and this happened. We know Canada's record on this to this point.

I'm sure the chair would avoid our getting into any kind of budget debate. I also know that what the government has brought forward in terms of means and measures is simply not enough. I know the government is hoping to bring forward its own timelines and targets, which will be intensity-based and will lead to further emissions increases in this country—guaranteed.

We think it goes back to the importance and the need for something like this. It gives people a certainty. People need certainty. The other types of targets are not. To suggest this economic collapse—I mean, that's ridiculous. It doesn't bear repeating or comment.

The propositions the NDP made in its climate change budget that was released more than two and a half years ago talked about the economic impacts and the positive reconstruction of the Canadian economy around the environment.

Ultimately, Mr. Chairman—and this is my last comment—we are trying to find the line on the budget sheet of businesses in Canada for where pollution goes. Right now it doesn't go anywhere. At some point it has to be accounted for. If it's not, then that's just irresponsible government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

If there is no further debate, we will call the question.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Certainly. We will call a recorded vote on NDP-15.1

A point of order, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Is it possible to table documents at this stage, in reference to the vote that's about to take place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Which documents did you have in mind?