Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, we could.

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

I don't want us to lose sight of the point that maybe some of the provinces could divvy up the last session on accountability. Since we don't need the whole two hours for the Auditor General, we could think of doing the provinces or a consideration of Mr. Bigras' point. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to clarify something that Mr. Harvey said. I think Mr. Cullen also referred to it.

The aim of the bill is to make the Kyoto objectives compulsory, and there are a number of ways to do it. However, we have to draw the line. If the bill passes and the government is compelled to respect the Kyoto targets, then it will be up to the government to decide how to proceed.

The government cannot ask us how much it will cost or what is to be done. Would it be 20 per cent of domestic market trades and 30 per cent foreign credits?

The bill is not intended to replace the government. Its intention is to ensure that Canada will not go against international law and will respect its Kyoto Protocol obligations.

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

... wherever possible.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Of course. And it is up to them to work out the details. Why ask me how much it will cost? They will have to decide if they want to opt for 50 per cent or 20 per cent of the domestic market. The choice is theirs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

In my opinion, there is another aspect that we should examine during the course of the six sittings, namely, the assumption that we find in the bill, and I quote: “[...] market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets [...]”

That is not incidental, Mr. Chairman. We cannot study this bill without considering the possibility that, if it is passed, we could have a market-based CO2 emissions trading mechanism here in Canada. I know that the government is not keen on domestic emissions trading. I cannot help but wonder why. The government believes in a market-based system, but when comes the time to apply it to the environment, it no longer thinks that it is a good idea. This is something that warrants a full debate, and I have no intention of going into it today.

We think that Canada should have a market-based mechanism for CO2. The government does not think so. Why not discuss the implementation of this type of market in Canada? Some will say that it has worked quite well in Europe. I know that the government does not share that opinion. A parliamentary committee should discuss the content and the essential aspects of these issues.

I am not saying that we should devote an entire meeting to this subject, but as far as I am concerned, the market-based mechanism and its implications are far too important for us to ignore.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Just to follow up on Mr. Rodriguez' point, there's no suggestion in my comments to say that we need witnesses to tell us how it's going to happen, the outside commentary that I think is required in this.

To simply say it's the government's responsibility and the committee bears no responsibility for its calling upon government is irresponsible. It reminds me a lot of the complaints made over the 13 years after we signed Kyoto, for the years after Kyoto, that a number was picked. There was no plan in place. Where did we end up?

To simply suggest, though, that this is the number it's going to be and we're not going to listen to, from experts, what the likely or possible makeup of achieving those targets might look like...I don't understand why that would be a wrong-headed conversation for this bill.

So while I understand--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Do you want to clarify that for Mr. Cullen?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Of course, I want to clarify that. I want to hear from those experts how much this could cost. The only thing I'm saying is that they decide what they do with it. If we're going to discuss how much it could cost, that's fine; I agree with it. But it's not me with a private bill who is going to draft all the government legislation. No way. I just want to make sure that we agree on that.

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

It was never the suggestion to do so. That would take how many meetings? It would take dozens and dozens of meetings. If we're in agreement on the need to understand some of the implications of what we're asking for and the likely solutions, in a sense it would help force the hand of the government to achieve this bill, by using the mechanisms that are appropriate. This goes back to Mr. Bigras' point and mine regarding the marketplace.

In talking to Tim briefly and looking through our report, there are some comments on the market. But honestly, I don't think committee members are at all aware of the readiness of Montreal and how effective Montreal is right now for companies or the government to engage.

As Mr. Bigras said, there are some fundamental differences of opinion over the use of the market as a mechanism for achieving reductions. Without the marketplace, the implications are otherwise. I can't even imagine what this would actually require the government to do, if they're unwilling to use that tool, so that tool has to be presented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we've reached consensus on a plan.

Is there any objection with the plan that's been laid out, which Tim has made very clear, in the spirit that the witnesses for the next two meetings...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we've pretty much.... The next two meetings are kind of agreed to, and obviously we can be somewhat flexible regarding the availability of witnesses in terms of the last four meetings.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, and some of the discussion taking place now will be taking place over the coming weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure, and again, Mr. Cullen, you're going to look at that one issue.

Mr. Bigras, if you have people you think should be part of this, now that we sort of have the outline, please submit those names to the clerk.

Could the opposition please prioritize that list to help out, so we know who the clerk should try to get here on Tuesday and Thursday of next week? I believe the government has already prioritized, or is in the process of doing so, and can provide that to the clerk. It would help to know the main people we'd like to get here first.

Are there any other comments?

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

My comment is that this process has worked reasonably well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Great. Any others?

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

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

Lastly, I know Tim's under pressure for this, but could we please have some sort of calendar of events by Tuesday?

It's hard to just agree to what we have today, without—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And of course we will have a CEPA meeting as well in there—

[A voice]

On Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So we'll work on that right away.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

When will the next CEPA meeting be held?