Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

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

Our colleague has just read a speech written by his staff. But I want to speak from the heart and based on certain values, Mr. Chairman. This is not a game; this is concrete action we are trying to take today to improve the living conditions of future generations. It is concrete action that we are taking collectively on behalf of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, by voting against this bill and particularly its preamble, the Conservative Party is voting against what it says. It is voting against the statement that Canada is committed to the principle of sustainable development. It is voting against the statement that a healthy economy and a healthy society depend on a healthy environment. It is voting against the statement that Canadians want to take responsibility for their environmental problems, and not pass those problems on to future generations. It is voting against the statement that global climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity and Canada, and that it poses significant risks to our environment, economy, society and human health. It is voting against a whole set of principles and concrete actions which are intended to allow us to start now to make concrete changes for the future.

Of course, the Conservatives have no real alternative to propose. Their solution is legislation that contains no short-term targets or even any timeline and which does not make the government responsible for making changes now. It is a bill with no heart. A government that can make cuts such as the ones the Conservatives have made affecting women, young Aboriginals and the rights of minorities is a government without a heart. A government that is prepared to scrap the gun registry, that cancels an agreement with the Aboriginal peoples like the Kelowna Accord, and that wants to put children aged 10 to 12 in prison is a government without a heart. And this same government will also vote against a responsible piece of legislation intended to improve living conditions for our children and grandchildren.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not go on for too long about what this bill is all about. We have had an opportunity to debate it in the House of Commons.

What I do want to say, however, is that the government should show a little more consistency. The fact is that the government whose members are sitting opposite has a particular characteristic, and that is that when it speaks to the Canadian people through the media, it asserts that Canada is prepared to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but not necessarily its targets. At the international level, however, and particularly in Nairobi, not once did the Minister of the Environment actually state that Kyoto targets were unachievable. So, what we want is for the government to make up its mind. It can't be telling Canadians that Kyoto targets are unachievable and then declare in Nairobi, in front of the international community, that short-, medium- and long-term plans are needed.

In my opinion, this is a bill that would force the government to honour its international commitments. It includes flexible mechanisms. We also hope that the government, particularly as regards the preamble that sets out a number of basic principles relating to climate change, will support Parliament, the international community, the vast majority of Quebeckers who are in favour of addressing climate change, and Canadians as well, the majority of whom are also supportive of this.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I've resisted the many opportunities today to enter into the political fray with the diatribes that have gone back and forth at committee. However, perhaps I can take this last opportunity to remind committee members that we've often privately and publicly talked about the effort and need to try to move this particular topic out of the realm of partisan interests.

While I appreciate that all of us as members face pressures from our parties and our constituents to boost our own party's interests, ultimately we'll have failed Canadians if we continue to do this. There must come a point for pragmatism and a practical approach, whether it's through this bill or others. It seems that we must contemplate another reality for Canada, particularly for our economy. If we can't contemplate that reality and make it thus, we will have failed everyone who's come before us and all the constituents we try to represent. And while it seems like short-term gain at times to have a partisan win, we have seen with our record over the last number of years that the ultimate loss is all of ours to bear.

As we go ahead with this bill and others, my reservations remain over the built-in provincial clauses that have been put into this bill today. I think they're problematic and ultimately dangerous. But we'll be moving forward to support the efforts of this intention, as we have declared our efforts to try to work with government and any opposition party willing to work with us.

Ultimately we have to decide, gentlemen--because that's who we have here around this table--what kind of legacy we'll leave behind in this particular Parliament and whether we'll have properly earned our pay and properly earned the votes and confidence of Canadians.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey, you're up.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make.

Mr. Rodriguez talked about my colleague, Mark, reading a speech. But I just want to say that the environment is an important issue for us, and that we don't just do things on the fly. I sincerely believe that if Mark read his speech earlier, it was only out of a desire to be completely open and accountable.

Also, you may remember that last Tuesday, the Environment Commissioner stated in front of this Committee that we could probably remove some 135 million tons of CO2 from the system, in the best case scenario, but that this would require buying credits abroad. After that, an expert on assessing available carbon credits abroad told us that it would be difficult for us to buy more than 15 million tons worth.

In our debate on the bill today, we were criticized for defending a certain ideology. But the position of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats could not be more ideological. In terms of the preamble, we are all in favour of motherhood and apple pie. We can't be completely opposed to that principle. However, I find it rather sad that Mr. Rodriguez is moving a motion with respect to Bill C-288, probably with the sole purpose of delaying the government's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

What I didn't hear in the discussion—in fact, I just heard from Monsieur Harvey—is that....

If I understood him correctly, Mr. Harvey agrees with the principles laid out in the preamble.

In Monsieur Warawa's remarks, none of the facts that are laid out and none of the values of Canadians that are laid out were challenged. The only challenge is the crucial phrase, “this legislation is intended to meet, in part, Canada's obligations under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol”.

The minister herself, in Nairobi, as Mr. Bigras pointed out, confirmed that Canada supports the Kyoto Protocol. The minister, I think I heard her say for the first time on Kyoto, confirmed that we would have to try to do something in the short term—that is, before 2012. All this does is translate that intention into a more vigorous form of action, monitoring, and accountability. That's what the preamble is about. That's what the bill is about. So either the minister misspoke herself in Nairobi or she intends to do her best to try to meet the obligations under Kyoto, which is the whole point of this proposed law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some of the comments that were made, particularly those regarding the minister going to Nairobi. I thank the members from the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP for accepting her invitation to go to Nairobi with her. I'm glad you found it informative.

The minister has said all along that we are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. As has been said, she was honest and shared with the Kyoto countries that we will not meet the targets. When she was in Kenya she did provide some clarification, that because of the inaction of the previous Liberal government, we find ourselves in the situation of being 35% above those targets. Of course, some didn't like her sharing the facts on why we are 35% above those targets, that it was the inaction of the previous Liberal government.

Mr. Chair, we are very committed to Kyoto and we always have been. The Kenyan government asked the minister to stay, so she stayed another couple of days and with our government signed a memorandum of understanding to help them with conservation projects in Kenya. That's how well respected she is. She also had a number of other countries share with her how happy they are with her commitment to Kyoto. They also shared the difficulties that they're experiencing as well in meeting the targets.

We've heard from witnesses that Canada now cannot meet the targets. That's what the experts have said. So the minister has been honest.

But we remain committed. We are one of 165 countries that have signed to continue our commitment to Kyoto, to be part of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. We are actually one of the few countries that are right up to date with reports and funding to the Kyoto Protocol.

A progress report--it should have been released by the previous Liberal government in January 2006--shows that the projections were 47% above the Kyoto Protocol target. Of course, some would suggest that the previous Liberal government wouldn't want to release that bad news just before an election. But we did; we've met all of our Kyoto obligations, which the previous government did not, in reporting and funding, and we will do the very best we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've been honest: because of the inaction of the previous government, we are finding ourselves in the situation as a country that we are far above Kyoto targets. We cannot meet those targets. We've been honest with Canadians about that.

We will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We do not support Bill C-288, because it will not reduce greenhouse emissions. It will not take us in a way that will reduce pollutants, and Canadians do want us to clean up the environment. After 13 years of inaction, I think Canadians, and particularly the Conservatives, have lost trust in the Liberal plan.

People might ask, Mr. Chair, how many years of inaction and failure it will take for people to realize that the Liberal plan doesn't work. I'm quite surprised that the Bloc and the NDP would be supporting a plan from the Liberal Party, which has proven that it was not able to do anything within 13 years of government. So I'm surprised at that.

Moving to the preamble, the part I do have difficulty with is the bullet that says the legislation is intended to meet Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chair, all the witnesses, except for one, agreed this is a bad bill, it's not achievable. Therefore we will not be supporting it. The rest of the preamble we agree with, but being honest....

As I said, the witnesses support that this is not achievable. Bill C-288 is not a good bill, so we won't be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is there any further debate on the preamble?

Shall the preamble carry?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

(Preamble agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

For debate, the title is the long title as it appears. Any debate or comments on the title?

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will report the bill to the House as amended.

The final item: shall the committee order a reprint of this bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On division. I hope we would save a tree.