Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll just sort this out, if you can just give us a minute. We're looking at page 16 of the amendments, and we're just getting the exact placement so we have it correct here.

Could everyone turn to page 4 of the bill and look at subparagraph 5(1)(a)(iii), which would be line 10 in the English, line 11 in the French. That would now read, on line 11:

measures to provide for a just transition for industry affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions

And then, of course, it carries on.

Is that correct, Mr. Cullen?

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

That's correct. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I will repeat that.

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

The whole subparagraph 5(1)(a)(iii) now reads:

spending or fiscal measures or incentives, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

—measures to provide for a just transition for industry affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions, and

Then it goes on to subparagraph 5(1)(a)(iv). Does everybody have that now?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're now discussing and debating the amendment put by Mr. Cullen.

Are there comments on that amendment? Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am speaking now on behalf of my party. We have always believed that it is inappropriate for businesses that are already causing pollution to benefit from tax incentives or tax measures.

You may recall that the Environment Commissioner told us that very often, federal government departments — and I'm thinking in particular of the Department of Finance — do not comply with the strategic environmental assessment. That means that Parliament passes bills that provide significant fiscal incentives to polluting industries. Three years ago, we passed a bill to give $250 million to the oil industry.

My concern with respect to this amendment is that it will strengthen the polluter-paid principle, whereas we believe it should be the polluter-pays principle.

So, I would like to move a friendly amendment to that amendment. We could delete the words “including a just transition fund for industry” and add, after the words “or fiscal incentives”, the words “for green or clean industries”.

The subparagraph would thus read as follows:spending or fiscal measures for green or clean industries

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It does say fiscal measures, not incentives, Mr. Bigras. I'm not sure about the French, but in the English, it does say “measures”.

Mr. Cullen, did you want to clarify that?

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

Yes, this is an important clarification.

The original submission talks about a “just transition fund”. That is not what's being proposed now. It's:

measures to provide for a just transition for industry affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions

I appreciate the concern that Mr. Bigras raises. It's not an intention or a motion to suggest that we subsidize or pay those who are polluting. But we heard from many in the industry who are looking to make the transitions that if Bill C-288 is brought into full force, there was a relatively strong consensus that within some industries there would be a pretty big impact. We don't necessarily know what the impact would be, but it would be measurable.

Creating some allowance for workers in particular to move from industry to industry, into a more sustainable industry, for example--the measures would be directed in that way, not to allow industry to continue to pollute, but to allow them to transition away from their polluting practices without significantly harming one industrial sector or another. It's something for us to consider seriously, as members of Parliament, in passing a bill. If it overly targets one section or area of the country in too negative a way, the resistance within our communities will be strong.

We've seen this before in other pieces of legislation that allow for workers to move from the textile industry, for example, in southwestern Ontario, in Quebec, into other industries that we know we want to promote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Godfrey is first, and then Mr. Rodriguez.

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

My understanding of the whole paragraph (a) is that it says that when you have a climate change plan, there should be a description of any measure the government may decide to take. It doesn't have to do all four. It doesn't even have to do the most recent thing that is being suggested by Mr. Cullen.

But among the things it might consider would be such a transition fund. If it does that, this has to be a part of the report on the climate change plan. It doesn't mandate spending; it doesn't insist that there be such a fund. But this is the description of the kinds of things that, if the government chooses to undertake them, it has to report on as part of its plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

Is Mr. Cullen prepared to substitute the word “workers” for the word “industries”?

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

In a sense, part of this is an olive branch to some of the industrial groups that came before us, to suggest that there is a possibility for them to transition themselves into greener economies.

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

What do you think of the word “communities”?

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

The problem with the use of the word “communities” is that this can very much broaden to include somebody who may not be affected by anything in Bill C-288 suddenly having access to a just transition fund, and that's certainly not the intention.

Using the word “workers” may have more specific relevance. This person was affected; their job was removed; and the company is looking to transition to another form of energy production, manufacturing, or something. That might make more sense, but I would hesitate to use “communities”. That really broadens it as to who is affected. It could go on and on, and that's not the intention of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

What always bothers me is that the tax system ends up serving the polluting industries. I remember that according to the Liberals' Green Plan, the large industrial emitters were to be responsible for lowering their greenhouse gas emissions by 45 megatons. However, if polluting companies in the major industrial sectors adopted technology funding measures, a 6-megaton reduction would be possible.

In a way, I would say that an approach that allows businesses to finance these technologies through the provision of greenhouse gas emission credits is a better idea than using tax instruments.

Where I'm from, we have a lot of trouble accepting the idea that tax instruments should serve a polluting industry, which is making huge profits. In any case, that industry has the capital it needs to make the transition. There is no possible comparison between the textile and manufacturing industries and the oil industry. There is a significant gap between them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I think you wanted to reply to that.

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

Yes, and a friendly amendment to look at workers. If that's more poignant and more directed at the people affected, then that's fine with us.

The only thing I would suggest is that we're not comparing the oil and gas sector to the textile industry, but keeping in mind that under Bill C-288 it's certainly more than just the oil and gas sector that's affected. I'm thinking of certain mining operations or anyone who produces any greenhouse gases.

So if it's workers, and if that's acceptable to Monsieur Bigras or others, we'd be willing to accept that amendment.

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

Workers instead of industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So you're accepting that friendly amendment, Mr. Cullen?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, I believe you had a comment.