Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

What length of break are you looking at?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Two minutes would be adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It will be on the timer. The gavel will sound again in two minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I thought you already made a ruling in relation to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There's been abuse on both sides.

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

There has been, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm going to stop it at this point. When we call for a two-minute break, it means a two-minute break.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That would be fine. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We will reconvene and debate amendment L-3.1.

Mr. Cullen, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Very briefly, first of all, we need to recognize the importance of a preamble and that it's only guidance for governments looking at the act and for Canadians reading it.

This basically says air pollution and greenhouse gases are a risk, Canada recognizes the jurisdictions of provinces and the federal government, and climate change constitutes a serious threat. I'm reading the things we all agreed to, all four parties.

There's a responsibility to act, again with the agreement of all four parties. We are in the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we are signatories to Kyoto, still with agreement around the table. Lastly, the concept of substitution and the highest order of pollution prevention are in this, which we again agreed to unanimously.

We will be supporting this preamble, and we encourage other members to do so with haste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As we debated yesterday, on the preamble for the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards, a preamble needs to be balanced. It needs to describe an ambitious undertaking, and it needs to be possible and realistic. It is to provide clear guidance on what the government should be doing.

I'd like to go through this.

The first whereas is “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to having a national carbon budget”. Mr. Chair, what's being proposed is a major change in focus from what the original Clean Air Act was proposing, focusing on clean air quality, cleaning up pollution, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the health of Canada and the health of the planet.

What's being proposed in this preamble is a carbon tax. The carbon tax gives a very clear direction that there's a national carbon budget, which would require billions of dollars from new taxes on Canadians. We heard a few weeks ago that the Liberal government was....

I hear snoring over there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Could I ask everybody to respect the process, please?

Thank you very much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, this government has made it very clear that we have two choices, two directions in which we can head to clean up the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is, to slow down the economy; or through technology created right here in Canada, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, through technologies like carbon capture and storage.

What was being proposed previously by the Liberal Party was carbon taxing, and as I started to say, there was praise from the Liberals to provide a new $100-billion carbon tax on Canadians and industry. Also, their proposal was to have billions of dollars leave Canada to buy carbon credits, hot air credits.

To build the technology, as I said previously, we either slow down the economy, which we're opposed to.... We need to have a healthy balance, a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

What they're proposing is this billions of dollars of tax, and having then, in turn, billions of dollars leaving Canada to buy these hot air credits. In a preamble sharing where the government needs to go in a clear, balanced approach, that does not achieve that. That's not what Canadians want. Having billions of dollars of investment leaving Canada definitely will not help the environment in Canada and it will not help build that technology that's needed. It will not help, ultimately, the issue of climate change.

The second “whereas”:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health, and are matters of national and international concern which cannot be contained within geographic boundaries;

I wouldn't have difficulty with that, but what we've seen over this week particularly, the hours and hours that have been spent in removing the issue of how to clean up air pollution to improve air quality, both indoor and outdoor, what we've seen with the changes, the amendments that have come from the Liberal Party, is basically to gut out any mention of air pollution and indoor and outdoor air quality.

The preamble needs to represent what is being proposed in the bill. That is a good preamble, a good part of the preamble, but to have, now, the bill gutted and have the tools to deal with air quality, indoor and outdoor, taken out of Bill C-30, it doesn't seem to be logical. It should be in there, and unfortunately it was taken out.

Next:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that climate change constitutes one of the most serious threats to humanity and to Canada, and poses major risks not only to the environment and the economy, but above all to the health and safety of all people;

I don't have problems with that. Climate change is an issue that, as the Government of Canada, we need to recognize and we need to work hard to achieve reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd like to skip to the last “whereas” under subclause 2(1):

Whereas the Government of Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which entered into force in 1994, and Parliament ratified in 2002 by majority vote in the House of Commons and the Senate the Kyoto Protocol which entered into force in 2005 and under which Canada must honour its obligation to reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period from 2008 to 2012 to six percent below their level in 1990;

Mr. Chair, it's ironic that this L-3.1 comes from the Liberals. In 1994, when this came into force, Canada had a Liberal government. When they had an opportunity to do something to clean up the air they didn't. Greenhouse gas emissions under their leadership increased 35% above those Kyoto targets. So this “whereas” is insinuating that we're starting in a healthy position. Again, a preamble has to be realistic. It has to take us in an ambitious direction but also a realistic direction.

At 35% above target, the Liberals, after failing miserably on cleaning up the environment, are now saying we want the Government of Canada to clean up the mess that we left. We are already working hard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A point of order, Mr. Cullen?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I mean no disrespect to the parliamentary secretary. We have a fixed timeline, I believe, of returning this bill. I can see by the government's actions now that they are choosing to filibuster this process and delay. Specifically, the point of order I raise is that the parliamentary secretary has chosen to go back and rehash debates that this committee has already had, and talk about votes that have already been passed and accepted into this bill. The preamble's purpose is to reflect what's gone on in the bill. The parliamentary secretary would like to debate the veracity of our climate change agreements internationally, the various aspects of this legislation that we've already passed as a committee, some of which was with the government's support as well.

I respectfully submit that we are on the point of a preamble that is to reflect the aspects of the bill, not to continue a debate that has already been finished and voted on. It is not in order to go back and rehash old debates. If the government is choosing to filibuster its own bill, delay it, I would suggest to them that this bill by its own timeline is to be delivered back to the House of Commons today, or tomorrow morning, to finish our committee work. We either finish this committee work now as we go through and you just accept defeat on the things you've lost, and accept the fact that there are things in this bill that you voted for.... That's how this Parliament works when it's in a minority situation. And we should get on with it, finish the preamble, name the bill, and with confidence and pride return it back to the House as a working document from this committee, which has worked hard. The returning back over old debates is unproductive, unnecessary, and in everyone's estimation represents the process of filibustering. It's beyond me why the government would choose to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I will point out, however, that it is a matter of debate, and I am compelled to allow debate to continue.

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

On a point of order, I think the filibuster was just happening there. He's filibustering us at this stage. What's that? You could have said that in two words.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa does have the floor. I think we are all aware of the timeframe we're working under. It is a matter of debate, and the chair is compelled to allow debate to continue. I'll give the floor back to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, I appreciate that.

As Mr. Cullen knows, I have not spent a lot of time talking. I've listened carefully.

I thank you, Mr. Jean, for very clearly finding some errors to this point.

We've tried to create a bill that will deal with the issues of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution levels in Canada. Members have seen fit to dramatically change Bill C-30 as it was originally presented. But we still have continued in a spirt of being willing to work with all members of this committee, with the ultimate goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Canada.

Chair, speaking to the preamble in Bill C-30, the preamble reads as follows:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health, and are matters of national and international concern which cannot be contained within geographic boundaries;

Mr. Chair, that's a good preamble. It shares the direction in which Canada needs to go. We need to have a preamble that's realistic, balanced, and clearly takes us in a direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'd appreciate it if we could keep the chatter in the rest of the room down, please. Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

We clearly need to have a preamble that's realistic. As I said originally, the national carbon budget takes us in the direction of tax, tax, tax, and sending billions of dollars out of Canada. That's not what Canadians want. They want action here, and that's what they're getting from this government.

They also want realistic targets based on a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The last “whereas” is.... From the science we've heard around this table, what's being proposed is not realistic. It would not be good for the economy. We need to have a balance of both.

Those are my comments. I do not support what's being proposed by the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson, you're next on the list.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First let me start for a moment by reminding Mr. Cullen that debate is our privilege as MPs. If perhaps some day he finds himself on the short end of a majority government, he'll be fighting very fiercely for his privilege to debate as much as he would like to or as much as his constituents would like him to be able to debate. I think it's an important point for everyone around the table to understand.

Mr. Chair, the preamble's important, of course, because it establishes what the Government of Canada is committed to or what the Government of Canada does.

I think it's important to be reminded that, as a point of law, the members opposite are the opposition, not the Government of Canada. Our debate on the specifics of each of these preamble statements is in fact very important. They are attempts to put words in the mouth of the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada, as far as I can tell, is not committed to a national carbon budget. We don't want a carbon tax. The largest tax on corporations is not the proper direction in which to go.

Mr. Chair, I want to start with something else, before I get into the specifics of this.

We've reached a stage here, as we talk about Canada honouring its obligation to meet the Kyoto target and the timeline. When the Liberals were the government, they had the time to act, they had the dollars to act, and they say they had the tools to act. It's clear that they lacked the will to act.

The opposition and the other parties that are not the Government of Canada now want to commit the Government of Canada to what many witnesses before this committee testified is a reckless course of action.

In fact, Buzz Hargrove from the CAW said it would be suicidal to our economy to try to meet the Kyoto target and timeline. I don't think most people would consider Mr. Hargrove to be a card-carrying Conservative member. I think his statement should certainly be reflected on and taken into account on this one.

It's easy to make a commitment from the opposition when you don't have to actually fulfill the commitment. It's what happened with Mr. Dion as Minister of the Environment. He didn't keep the commitment when he was in government, and he says he can't keep it beyond this government. Then the only time he says he can meet it is in fact when we are the Government of Canada. It is weak leadership. It is not leadership.

I'm opposed to opposition attempts to not only foist the carbon tax on us, but to kick the auto industry when it's struggling right now with an extreme auto emissions standard. They've put politics into Bill C-30 rather than practicality.

Real people's lives hang in the balance. The idea of a just transition fund implies the exact opposite. The transition in the near term is in fact unjust, otherwise they wouldn't call it a “just transition fund”. They know real people are going to be hurt.

The Government of Canada respects the balance that needs to be achieved between environmental action and responsible environmental action. It's ambitious, yet realistic, taking into account the need to balance environmental achievement with real economic realities.

When auto jobs go under in the near term, it's tax dollars that support not only public health care in this country but many things. They support underwriting payment for the same environmental programs that we hope to clean up the environment with.

I oppose the opposition's efforts in this to kick the auto industry when it's struggling. Let it be noted that the NDP and the Liberals have turned their backs on the auto industry in Canada. That's the reality.

I oppose opposition efforts to ignore swaths of witness testimony from the CAW, industry, and academics about the dangers of reckless compliance in honouring the Kyoto obligation. They've put politics ahead of witness testimony. They do so at their own peril.

Mr. Chair, while there are measures in the preamble that the government agrees with, there are some very provocative ones that we simply cannot abide by.

I will be opposing this, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Monsieur Gourde.