Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development 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.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
They haven't been moved, so we just carry on until someone moves the amendments.
Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We find ourselves at the issue of what it would mean for Canada to meet the Kyoto target. Earlier, during the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Jayson Myers stated the two opinions on how legislators can meet the Kyoto target: either reduce the economic output by 30%--roughly $300 billion in lost productivity--or purchase an equivalent amount of reduction internationally, at a cost of $5 billion a year for the period 2008 to 2012.
I quote Mr. Myers: “You would have to have widespread replacement of energy sources, widespread improvement in vehicles currently on the road, and widespread replacement of industrial machinery. It's not going to happen in five years.”
Our strong opposition to Bill C-288 rests on its link to the short-term reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol based on the negative impact this would have on the Canadian economy and on the environmental process. Our government's proposed legislation is simply a much better approach to Canada's making its contribution to addressing climate change in the short, medium, and long terms. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulations with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets will be announced by spring 2007. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed--by the Liberals--in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and that their objectives are achieved.
Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I will not be supporting this. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be to delete this entire clause, but I don't believe we can do that, so I will be voting against clause 3.
I do have a question for Mr. Rodriguez, through the chair. His new leader, Mr. Dion, has said that Canada is unable to meet its Kyoto targets. In fact, he said, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. Everyone is saying target, target.”
From this quote, my guess is that Bill C-288 has put you offside with your party leader. What is the Liberal position on meeting the original Kyoto target under the new leadership of Mr. Dion?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Despite the ridiculous and occasionally insulting character of the current government's strategy, I would like to respond briefly.
Mr. Dion has said that if this visionless, heartless government, which has no interest in the environment, stays in office for long, we definitely will not be able to meet our Kyoto targets in the coming years. However, if we replace it immediately, we will be able to. That is our intention, Mr. Chairman.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
Are there any other comments on clause 3?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, this is not question period right now, where people are going to be asking a series of questions on whatever topic they want. We're here very specifically to deal with the clause-by-clause. I would ask you, please, to stick to that and make sure the questions are relevant too.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Silva, what I will attempt to do is give some latitude at the beginning of this. Obviously I would ask all members to deal with the bill that's at hand.
Basically, let's try to get through this. That's what we're here for today; we are examining the clause-by-clause. As I say, I'll give some latitude. If you feel you don't want to answer a question, please just simply say, no comment, and we'll move on.
Mr. Warawa.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think the question that I ask is not ridiculous. What I did was quote the new leader of the Liberal Party and I wanted clarification on that party's position. That party is basically supporting this bill. The leader said the target will not be reached. The witnesses we've heard at this committee said they won't be reached. Again, I think it's a very relevant question. Should this bill go forward if his own leader says it's not achievable? I think it's a relevant question, and he didn't want to answer that.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Warawa, I'm not going to spend the whole day answering this.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I would like to be very clear, because he's misquoting Mr. Dion. If we replace this government in the short term, of course we can meet our Kyoto objectives. But if they're still there for a long time and we spend time doing nothing, then nobody can reach it. His words were very clear--and I was there. If we replace the government in a short period of time, yes, as he said, we can meet our Kyoto objective. So this bill is very good for that.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. Could we get back to clause 3? That's the one I'm looking for.
Any other comments on it?
Shall clause 3 carry?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, can we use the results of the previous vote or would you like each vote recorded?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 4--Binding on Her Majesty)
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
December 7th, 2006 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
As regards clause 4, Canada needs a national approach with the active participation of the provinces and territories, in order to meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and atmosphere pollution. That is why our government has listened to the provinces and has invested in public infrastructure and mass transit programs. That had to be done, because it's a good policy.
The federal government cannot be the only leader when it comes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. All levels of government, including the municipalities, have to be rowing in the same direction. A national approach with short- and long-term targets will benefit Canadians and the economy. Our government has put forward a plan which will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and less air pollution. We have to work on developing that plan in order for the provinces, the territories, the industry, Canadians and Quebeckers to be able to participate fully.
For those reasons, we will be voting against this clause of the bill and are proposing that it be repealed.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I just want to remind my colleague that we are on clause 4, which reads as follows:4. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.
I don't know why you would want to vote against clause 4 and Her Majesty the Queen.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Bigras, could you direct that through the chair to Mr. Harvey, please? And if Mr. Harvey cares to answer it, he can.
Mr. Harvey.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
We want this clause to say
that the act is binding on Her Majesty in Right of Canada or a province.
In other words, we want to add the words “or a province” in English and “ou d'une province” in French.
