Evidence of meeting #24 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
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Just to make sure we're talking on the same subamendment, does that include the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The subamendment is the five “Whereas” paragraphs that were formerly G-2 and the deletion of the “And whereas” of L-30. That's the topic of our debate at this point.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand.
All right. I'm going to respond to some comments, and this includes that debate. I would ask other members to be diligent in listening to these particular points.
I believe the proposal by Mr. Warawa is a good one, and it provides a compromise. I would suggest we use this particular amendment to move forward, but what I'm concerned with--and the point of the last conversation that I want to take up--is not the idea that we were being defeatist, which was a term used by Mr. McGuinty, but more that we want to make sure that we're not challenged in the future and subject to wasteful litigation, which doesn't help anyone.
I want to speak further about that in relation to, especially, the one-year timeframe that has been suggested, as far as the prescribed class of motor vehicles for any one year goes.
Although it doesn't talk about an implementation time for those standards, my colleague Mr. Watson has brought forward many times, on behalf of the auto industry, the fact that it takes sometimes three to six years for the cycle of a motor vehicle to reach a plant site and actually have changes made. So even if the changes were made year to year, it might be five or six or even ten years before they were implemented. I see that as being something of a problem.
As well, when we talk about “international best practices”, which I think is a very vague and unenforceable term, that also speaks to international standards that are in other countries, such as Australia. As Mr. Cullen knows, I spent three years in Australia. Australia has different wattages, different electricity standards, and, quite frankly, great environmental and recycling systems. In this particular case, I would suggest that using international standards might bring about technical problems, because some countries that have better carburation systems or better technology are not considering the size of our vehicles in Canada or indeed the cold.
Finally, in the second paragraph of L-30, I understand we're dealing with this particular amendment, but in my mind it speaks to inequitable policy that prescribes based upon a corporation's factor, such as company size or number. I think the key is that we want to move forward with general language that deals with what our general intention is and then deal with the more specific standards within the legislation itself.
I think this is a good amendment. It talks about, in general terms, what the Government of Canada wants to move forward with and what this committee intends to move forward with. I would suggest that any amendments put forward by any of the parties would be duly considered and would be appropriate, given their different interests on this legislation, and also the changes that have been taking place over the last three days.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by picking up on some earlier comments from our colleague Mr. Cullen. It's important. I want to speak to that for a moment, because I think the amendment remedies the deficiency of L-30.
I think Mr. Cullen was referring to NDP-35 when he talked about who it's important to consult. The wording includes “labour organizations” as well as business.
It's important for the committee to remember that we had both industry and labour here. They gave very compelling testimony. I think what they said is not reflected in what Mr. Cullen or the Liberals have gone on to say. What they said is I think really largely captured in the amendments the government is proposing to L-30. There has to be a goal or an aspiration, if we want to use Mr. McGuinty's language, that's realistic and attainable.
In speaking about targets, for example, Mr. Hargrove said they have to be a stretch but they also have to be attainable. Why? Labour agrees with industry on this one: jobs hang in the balance. Real people's lives hang in the balance with our decisions. So when we're charting a course, I think the government's amendments very clearly capture the reality we have with an integrated North American market for vehicles. It takes into account the competitive realities of industry. It offers the challenge to achieve an ambitious standard without creating the kinds of obstacles that could lead to industries going out of business, laying people off.
I think what we have in the government's amendments is an appropriate balance between the need for environmental gain.... I think that has to be understood in the government's amendments, that we are looking for an ambitious standard and we are looking to make gains in fuel efficiency. I would presume that means sustained gains but in a way that makes it realistic. We're taking into account the capital stock turnover and the research and development cycles of industry, which both they and labour talked about.
I don't know how we could sit at the table and somehow disregard both business and labour when crafting an aspiration statement on this important issue and then later hope to suggest in a further amendment that they should be included in consultations about these types of things. They were here. We heard from them. Canadians heard from them.
It's not restricted to testimony before this committee. I was in Washington, D.C., two weeks ago and they were having hearings at the energy subcommittee there. Both business and labour--the United Auto Workers, Mr. Gettelfinger--talked about what a standard that's too far ahead will do to the industry. It will lead to offshoring. That's what Mr. Gettelfinger said. We've heard similar compelling arguments by Mr. Hargrove for Canadian auto workers. It's either that or in the near term you'll get a flood of vehicles into our markets that are produced overseas.
I think we have to be balanced in our approach. Yes, we want to achieve the necessary environmental gains, but we have to do so in a way that takes into account that these are competitive industries. We're not only competing on the continent but off the continent. So we have to move forward in a way that is realistic.
We heard testimony about the United States as well. They've reformed their CAFE standards. Both industry and business have testified before the congressional subcommittee that those are a stretch but they think they can attain them, with effort. The opposition is now proposing something that leapfrogs beyond that--with no end in sight, quite frankly.
Every time an international standard is changed, the government then has to change its regulation. I don't know, but regulations could change in several jurisdictions around the world several times within a year potentially. What does that mean? The government loses the control to decide itself what regulation it wants. Business now has to comply. Labour winds up being in the same boat with them.
I think there are problems with L-30 that are remedied by the government's proposed amendments here. We want to achieve sustainable development by integrating environmental, social, and economic factors in the making of all decisions. We recognize that the motor vehicle industry operates in an integrated North American market. We're committed to regulating fuel consumption of motor vehicles. And we're seeking to establish an ambitious and realistic standard for motor vehicles that is achievable within a North American market and that significantly contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
We're not looking--and neither is industry or labour, as they've testified before us--to get out of making gains in both fuel efficiency and environmental performance.
I think what the government's amendments do here is remedy the deficiency in the second “Whereas” in L-30, and that's why I'm prepared, as a guy who comes off the shop floor, as Mr. McGuinty alluded to earlier, to support this type of an amendment. I think it does the right thing, and I know that people in communities back home would respect that. They'd tell the two New Democrat MPs there that this is the type of language that needs to be incorporated in our vision for moving forward.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I did not put my name on the list, but I will take the floor for a few minutes in order to take part in this debate.
In my view, it is important to have strict standards.
I am somewhat surprised to hear the arguments made today by the members on the government side. Since when have strict environmental standards been a brake to economic development? This is what Mr. Watson seems to say, while the opposite is true. Environmental standards are no longer a brake to economic development. Quite the contrary, they encourage innovation and development. Therefore, I believe ours should be the highest possible.
In its motion, the government states that it recognizes that the motor vehicle industry operates in an integrated North American market. This seems to imply that we should have the same standards as those of the United States.
But the market argument does not hold water. The California market is comparable to that of Canada. If it is possible in California, why would it not be possible to have stricter standards here, in Canada?
Let us not forget this is a preamble. A preamble provides direction, and we would like to push for higher standards. We wish for stricter standards that meet or exceed international best practices and that will promote innovation. We want standards that will allow us to grow our economy rather than lead to economic slowdown, as members of the government are saying.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to come back to the proposed amendment. I thank the government for putting forward the amendment. Our reading of it is that it doesn't exactly constitute an amendment. It's rather a wholesale substitution of the government's amendment for the amendment on the table. So we don't see it at face value, as an amendment, as opposed to a substitution.
I think it's important for people looking at this preambular section to remember that it's just that; it's a preambular section. It talks about, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed”. It doesn't ask the Government of Canada to be bound; it talks about the Government of Canada being committed to having fuel consumption standards that meet or exceed international best practices.
It's sort of like when the United States said they were committed to putting a man on the moon, or, for example, in the government's own budget, the title of which was “Aspire”--aspire to a better country, aspire to a better economy, aspire to a better environment. I thought that was the gist of the speech I heard from the Minister of Finance just last week. I think in that spirit, this is what we're putting forward here--that it is, as Mr. Bigras rightly points out, about saying that we're going to acknowledge that environmental standards are now a major driving, competitive force. If we want to be leading, we've got to get out front.
From the meetings I've had, Mr. Chair, and the witnesses I've heard from, from labour and from motor vehicle manufacturers, they also aspire to be in first place, and I think this reflects it well.
In conclusion, I don't accept the amendment--I'll close with this, Mr. Chair, if we're not there--and I want to raise it with the government just in case there's been a change in policy. The government uses language in the amendment that's put forward. It talks about the Government of Canada seeking to achieve sustainable development. I'm very pleased--I should think most parliamentarians are--to see that, given that one of the first acts of the government, when it got elected, was to change the wording in the enabling legislation at the Natural Resources Canada department and to remove the notion of sustainable development, replacing it with the words “responsible development”, to eliminate the social equity provisions of the classic sustainable development definition.
So I'm glad to see the government has shifted gears and recognizes that sustainable development is something we are bound to as a nation state, and I'm glad to see it reflected here. Maybe they can go back and amend the NRCan Act at the same time.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there no further debate?
Are we ready for the question on the subamendment? To be clear, this is a subamendment to L-30 that deletes the second “Whereas” of L-30, and inserts the five “Whereas” paragraphs of G-2.
(Subamendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We're back to L-30. Is there any further debate on L-30?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
How can we, if it's already been accepted? I am not certain--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
You took part of amendment G-2 and inserted it as a subamendment.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
No, I understand. But do we have the option of two preambles, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That seems to be a good compromising statement. Yes, we would like to go ahead with ours, Mr. Chair. We'll see how cooperative the opposition parties are.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay. Give me a moment.
All right, we will proceed with amendment G-2, which would make the preamble longer.
Mr. Warawa, you're proposing amendment G-2 as--
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
One moment, please.
Yes, that amendment G-2 would be part of the preamble. Let's see some give and take.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Reading it over, I think the last series of...if we can call them debates, they were somewhat unproductive as people quibbled over words. When we look through the government's version of this preamble, it talks about many of the things that we hope are achievable.
So on face value, we don't necessarily see the problem with having both clauses built within the preamble into the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. I think it's important for us to remain open and considerate of each other's positions.