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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I would like to begin, in the spirit of discussions that have preceded this moment, to make a friendly amendment to this. In proposed subsection 63.1(1), where it says, “the Minister shall enter into negotiations with representatives of provincial and territorial governments”, I would propose to add the phrase, “member of aboriginal, Métis, and Inuit communities”, and then carry on with “representatives of relevant private sector companies and non-governmental organizations”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Could we have that in writing if you have it?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The proposed friendly amendment would start:

63.1(1) Within ninety days after this section comes into force, the Minister shall enter into negotiations with representatives of provincial and territorial governments, members of aboriginal, Métis, and Inuit communities, and representatives of relevant private sector

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

Could I make a friendly suggestion? If the objective is to include “provincial, territorial, and aboriginal governments”, then you could just limit it to the term “governments”, which is a defined term in CEPA to include provincial, territorial, and aboriginal governments. So you could just use one word instead of the—

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We have “communities”. I guess my only concern is that in our desire to be inclusive, the one group that—Can one speak of Métis “governments”? That's my only concern.

[John Moffet]

Yes, that's a fair point, and we don't have a clear policy as to the inclusion of Métis, so maybe I'll retract my friendly suggestion.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

All right. This is key to a number of things that follow in our discussions: the creation of this entity, this independent agency, the green investment bank of Canada. Members will recall that Bloc motion BQ-6, which refers to an “independent body”, has referred to this particular entity. They have put in the green investment bank of Canada as being the independent entity because it went to some degree in recognizing the desire of the Bloc for a territorial approach. The point of this organization is to receive money from entities that emit excessive amounts of greenhouse gases. The purpose of that money is to be reinvested by those very companies in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases. So every company that is in excess of its 1990 minus 6% target invests a portion of its funds into this account, with the idea that the money then gets reinvested in greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies.

We think that this, to some degree, follows the initiative of Premier Stelmach, who has introduced a similar linked concept of a target for large emitting entities. The money gathered for those entities that is in excess gets put into a technology fund. We're being very precise that the money is reserved for the first two years, for those companies to reinvest. As they reinvest they get the money out.

Furthermore, we have introduced the concept that if the companies do not spend that money, the money remains, by and large, in the territory where it was collected. So, again, there is a recognition of territoriality.

It is through this mechanism that we will be able to address in greater detail how we can start to move towards our targets that are outlined in subclause 21.(1).

We're quite careful about leaving the possibility that we could designate an existing body or that somehow a new body can be created. That is the object of the consultations with everybody we've set out. We do not mandate a particular form of this, but we think it handles the objections of industry that somehow by charging companies for exceeding their carbon budget, which we will get into in greater detail, they're being taxed. The idea is, it's really a directed reinvestment plan, and it's designed to expedite the reduction of greenhouse gases by major greenhouse gas emitters. We think this will set in place a dynamic, starting in 2008, that will change the course of emissions. We have tried to later on put in a price structure that will encourage companies to make those reinvestments, but not at a horrendous economic price.

So this is a very crucial part of what is to come in terms of the carbon budget strategy that follows. This is the entity that Monsieur Bigras referred to, and I will leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

Well, we've already gone through this, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to do it anyway, because if I did any less, you would consider me less.

I oppose this on the basis that it requires a royal recommendation. Indeed, if you look specifically at proposed subparagraph 63.1(2)(f)(i) and at subsection (3), that is a carbon tax and somebody has to administer the carbon tax. I would suggest it would be the government. You can call it anything you want, but it's a carbon tax of a carbon tax. So I would object on that basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I hear your objection, but my ruling will be similar to what it was, and I forget which specific one we were talking about—entering into negotiations, not presupposing the outcome of the negotiations—so I will rule your intervention out of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect to proposed subsection 63.1(3), the tabling of a report is not a negotiation; it is a tabling of a report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ministers table reports all the time.

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

I understand, but it costs money and somebody has to pay for it, as well as proposed subparagraph 63.1(2)(g)(i), the promotion of early action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Well, it costs money for us to be here too. It will be the same.

That's proposed subparagraph 63.1(2)(g)(i)?

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

It's proposed subparagraph 63.1(2)(g)(i) and proposed subsection 63.1(3), the promotion of early action, which obviously takes some money and also the transfer of funds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

But it doesn't necessarily take government money to do that. All of that is subject to negotiation, in any event, and my ruling will stand on that.

As always, Mr. Jean, we never take these things personally.

Is there any further debate on amendment L-19.1?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, we know that the Liberal plan was to send billions of dollars out of Canada to try to buy our way out of this environmental mess that they've left us, and we've heard even as recently as a few weeks ago that they were praising a $100 billion tax scheme to apply to Canadians.

Now what's being proposed here is the introduction of one of the largest corporate tax increases in recent history with no expectation of achieving any reductions in greenhouse gases. The Liberals' proposal of an uncapped investment account is nothing more than a carbon tax. They would like to disguise that carbon tax within the hidden language, but in fact it is a tax. With no cap, companies can buy their way out of achieving real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. That's unacceptable. It renders their hard cap meaningless.

While the Liberal scheme for greenhouse gases is weak, their plan on air pollution is completely missing. Canadians witnessing increasing smog in their cities and struggling with respiratory illnesses such as asthma want a real plan. This is not in what's being proposed here. It's a tax. The leader, Mr. Dion, can talk all he wants about schemes, flip-flopping on the issues, but this is a tax that will not be good for Canada—billions of dollars of tax, a tax saying you can buy your way out and continue to pollute. That's not the solution. We need to have a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction in pollution, and this will not take us there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The honourable parliamentary secretary exasperates me. The Conservative Party has so stretched the definition of tax over the years that it has become meaningless. About a year ago, the then opposition critic for the environment, who is now the chair of the environment committee, said we could not include greenhouse gases under CEPA and regulate them, because that would amount to a carbon tax, and now the government is proposing to use CEPA to regulate greenhouse gases in some obtuse manner.

This proposal is not for a carbon tax. I think we have to be clear about that. It is more akin to an eco-RRSP for large final emitters in this country. It is a fund that they can invest in and they can get the money back to invest in high-rate-of-return, energy-efficient projects. So I'd like to simply make that statement for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that we would support the first choice of the Liberal Party as far as this amendment is concerned, and may I remind you that this happened several amendments ago, namely yesterday. The point is to create an organization which is independent from the government, and which we have called the Green Investment Bank of Canada. In my opinion, this is the way to go.

Under this amendment, an independent organization would be created, and it would be responsible for negotiating and creating a fund which the major polluters, namely large industrial greenhouse gas producers, could pay into, and which they would then be able to access at a later date.

I don't see how the Conservative Party could oppose this type of amendment, since up to 80% of the money in the fund would be spent in the province the money was paid into. In my opinion, it is completely wrong to say that this is a tax. In fact, large industrial polluters, many of which are located in Alberta and in the rest of Canada, will be able to access this fund. In my opinion, it represents a contribution which large polluters will make to a fund from which money would be taken in the future to finance projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, these projects would have to be approved by the independent organization.

I think this is the proper option. It is essential given the discussions we have had on the principles and the content of the Bloc Québécois amendment. Mr. Chairman, we will therefore support the Liberal amendment.