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.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
What I'm trying to say is that the environment can create opportunities right now, and even extraordinary avenues for economic development in the future. We have to stop seeing the environment as a threat to economic development.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try asking the question through you to Mr. Rodriguez again.
We are on clause 5. The title of clause 5 is “Climate Change Plan”, and there are a number of parts to clause 5. They have laid out their plan, and my question is again about this plan. What is the intent?
Now, we heard very clearly from him and the people...Mr. Ignatieff was quoted, who he was supporting. He very clearly said that they support a carbon tax, higher taxes for Canadians. It's a very clear, direct question. Is part of his climate change plan, part of Bill C-288, to increase the taxes of Canadians?
, he didn't answer that question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godfrey answered for him and, in a vague way, shared with this committee.... It sounded as though, yes, it is part of their plan. He's trying to justify increased taxes for Canadians for a carbon tax or an environmental tax or whatever they want to call it. And I just want to make it very clear to Canadians that this is part of the Bill C-288 plan: to increase taxes substantially for Canadians.
Now, would he be willing to do a yes or no, or is he going to ask Mr. Godfrey to answer for him again?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The question is to Mr. Rodriguez, but Mr. Scarpaleggia has also asked for the floor, and again, I would ask you to be brief so we can get on with clause 5.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
You know, asking for these kinds of details at this stage is ironic, given that the minister has tabled Bill C-30 and hasn't tabled any details about regulations. So I think this is an academic issue, and frankly, we should get on and vote on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Rodriguez, did you have a final comment? No?
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 6--Regulations)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
On clause 6, I believe we have a BQ amendment, if people could turn to page 15, and that's on page 5 of the bill.
Basically, if you will notice the amendment, it's that Bill C-288, in clause 6, be amended (a) by adding after line 32 on page 5 the following:
(a.1) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province Article 3, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 to 12, of the Kyoto Protocol, with any modifications that the circumstances require;
Are there any comments? Mr. Bigras, would you like to start off, please?
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to table this amendment. The first part gives the federal government, through the Governor in Council, the option — and I want to emphasize the term “option”, since it has to tie in with line 29 in clause 6 — of limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that can be release, as provided for under the Kyoto Protocol, and specifically paragraphs 1), 3), 4), 7), 8) and 10) to 12) of Article 3.
As for the second part, insofar as the provinces pledge to comply with the 6 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, they will be free to decide how they want to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, all of that depends on compliance with the commitments laid out in the Protocol.
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I note that the relevant phrase says the Governor in Council “may”, which means the Governor in Council isn't obliged to. It isn't a “should” or a “shall” or any of that stuff. So that's one issue.
I don't think there's probably a difficulty with the second part, which is (b) by adding after line 14:
Despite paragraph...each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
I have three concerns. One is whether in fact there is the suggestion that the federal government could impose an overall greenhouse gas emissions target on a province. That's one issue: do we have the power to do that? I'd be interested, actually, in hearing from a legal point of view whether we have a challenge here.
Secondly, I'm a bit concerned about what it might mean to our international trade obligations, and I'm thinking under NAFTA. It's one thing to take a sectoral approach and say that all cement plants across Canada are subject to the same emissions cap, for example. It would be quite different, it seems to me, under NAFTA to say that cement plants in Quebec are subject to a lesser greenhouse gas emissions cap than ones in Ontario and Prince Edward Island. So my second point is on international trade.
My third point, which is less a legal question, is whether this in some way undermines the possibility of having a national market for emissions trading when you have the same industry in different provinces with different standards.
Those are three questions I raise. My fourth question is, if there's any ambiguity, particularly on trade or the federal power, is there any danger, given that we put the word “could” in, that this whole bill could go down because we're offside on either the federal power issue or the trade issue?
That's really a technical question, and I'm wondering whether our legal counsel can give us some response to this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I would ask for a response, although it is out of her purview to do this. But I'll let her tell you.
Joann Garbig Procedural Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just confirmed that we're able to provide advice on any matter of the rules, practices, and procedures of the House. Questions of legality and constitutionality are outside of that area and not a matter of procedure.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Can you tell us this? If there is some ambiguity, does the fact that we say “could” save us from difficulty, or does it jeopardize us?
Procedural Clerk
I'm neither qualified nor here in any capacity to offer legal advice—just procedural, not legal.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I just think it would be helpful to have answers to those questions.
I don't know whether Mr. Bigras wants to respond to that. I am not just raising these questions to be ornery.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
There is no doubt in my mind that coming from Mr. Godfrey, whose new leader, Stéphane Dion, has always opposed a territorial approach, these questions are certainly not prompted by a desire to be ornery.
First of all, we did receive a legal opinion on this and had it validated by the Library of Parliament on December 7. It states the following:[...] it seems that the provision could be constitutionally valid in that it falls under either the criminal law power (91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, or the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to legislate for peace, order and good government in Canada (national dimensions theory) (introduction to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867).
We took the trouble of asking for a legal opinion to validate our amendment before even tabling it with the Committee. We figured that some members might raise constitutional arguments.
Indeed, with respect to the credits trading system—
I don't know whether Mr. Godfrey is listening, Mr. Chairman—
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I am perfectly willing to answer Mr. Godfrey's questions, but it would be nice if he were listening to the answer. I'm not doing this just to try and impress people.
With respect to the second question—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
In our discussion, this is a decision that will have to be made by the committee, in terms of some of those constitutional questions. Of course, if there's doubt, that might affect your vote. But that's a decision you're going to have to make.
I believe we'll go to Mr. Vellacott, and then to Mr. Cullen.
December 7th, 2006 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
It would be pretty clear that to support the Bloc amendment, because we believe that having a good plan in place regulating climate change is about having.... Then you get to the constitutional issues, the national—
Bloc