Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

There's still a little bit of vagueness. It's maybe becoming a little clearer than it was before, but that's a bit of an issue for me at this point, so I may ultimately decide where I vote on this one.

Mr. Bigras raises some good points. It's something that maybe the Liberal members want to respond to as well, because it does get into this whole issue of punishment and carbon taxes and so on.

Mr. Rodriguez's new leader has been unclear on the subject of carbon tax. In fact, Mr. Rodriguez knows the failed leadership candidate, Mr. Ignatieff, supported...it was clear he favoured a carbon tax. He failed, that's right, but he was in favour of a carbon tax. It's a bit of an unclear policy of the new leader, Mr. Dion, so I'm not sure whether the Liberals are going to vote on this one, because they seem to encourage punitive measures, carbon tax, those types of things. So we'll see where the vote goes on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

Let me read the amendment we are debating, which we are now going to vote on.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I don't mind asking the question if he cares to answer it, but simply—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Godfrey.

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

If I understand the question, it was directed toward various leadership candidates, ones who either succeeded or didn't succeed in the leadership race, rather than to the matter at hand, which is this amendment. The amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let me read the amendment, please, so everyone knows where we are.

It's line 10 in English, line 11 in French, and we are adding:

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

And then we carry on.

Does everyone understand that amendment? Okay.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays, 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any comments on clause 5?

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I want to follow up on the question from Mr. Vellacott. It's relevant that we're back to the main motion, which is dealing with clause 5.

The committee needs very clear clarification of the intent of this bill. Throughout the Liberal leadership race, a number of things were said, and Mr. Rodriguez at that time was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. He said taxes would have to increase dramatically. He said taxes would rise to protect the environment, and Mr. Vellacott was asking about the carbon tax position.

We are now dealing with Bill C-288, and the question is relevant. Is it going to include increased taxation to Canadians? That was the position of Mr. Rodriguez when he was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. Is that the same position of Mr. Dion, the new leader? We need to know where Bill C-288 is going to take Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Does anyone care to answer that question?

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact that he was elected and is a member of this Committee does not give him the right to say whatever pops into his head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As I say, I would ask people to cooperate and stick to the clause-by-clause study, which is what we're doing. Hopefully, we can be civil about it and get the job done that we have to do.

Are there any other comments on clause 5?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm quite disappointed by the response from Mr. Rodriguez. Hopefully, he's taking his bill seriously. We have some serious concerns with Bill C-288. That's why we've been opposing it to this point.

But it's a legitimate question. I'm sure he is not intending this as a meaningless bill. That is a legitimate question--what is his intent?--and this clause deals with that. Is part of this plan with Bill C-288 to provide increased taxation to support his plan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, do you wish to comment?

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

This bill does not apply to any specific government; that is to say, it doesn't say Conservative government or Liberal government. It simply says that Canada has made an international obligation under the Kyoto treaty. The Minister of the Environment herself, in Nairobi, indicated that Canada was not withdrawing from the Kyoto agreement.

As has been pointed out by the Conservatives opposite, there was the statement of the Commissioner of the Environment, which was reiterated yesterday, that what we need is an integrated plan if we're going to be in the Kyoto agreement. We need a plan to show how we're going to get there. We need accountability measures. She found these useful.

The government members have indicated that there will be a plan forthcoming. That plan presumably has to have some relationship, if it's going to be about greenhouse gases, with the commitment that the Minister of the Environment herself made toward the Kyoto process.

I find it entirely logical that in the interest of greater accountability, which apparently is one of the hallmarks of the government, to be completely consistent if we're going to honour our Kyoto obligations, if we're going to have a plan, we'd better have a monitoring mechanism to see how all of that works. And that doesn't depend on any particular political party or any particular political leader. It simply follows up on the suggestions of the Commissioner of the Environment in her September report. That's what this is about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The very interesting amendment that we passed here....These are fair and legitimate questions we've been putting to the members on the other side, because we want to find out what the intent is. Words are one thing, but what's the spirit of it, I guess, behind that? On the previous amendment, there was something about emissions that way.

Mr. Rodriguez, a question that I'm very curious about is this, and you may choose not to respond. But certainly people have said in recent days, individuals--Liberal candidate Mr. Ignatieff--have said that there's a trade-off between jobs and the environment. So I guess, Mr. Rodriguez, in view of your bill, Bill C-288, do you agree that there will be a trade-off between jobs and the environment and that's why we have this particular amendment in the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, do you care to answer that?

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

The Conservative Party has always pitted the economy against the environment. If you choose the economy, you forget about the environment. If you choose the environment, you forget about the economy. Nowadays—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you've asked us to be civil. At this point, I'd ask, through you, are the comments of Mr. Rodriguez being civil? I would think not. We need to cooperate. Please keep the comments civil.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Rodriguez is attempting to answer the question.

Again, I ask members, let's try to get back to what we're talking about here, and that's Bill C-288.

Mr. Rodriguez, perhaps you could finish your thought, and then we'll go to Mr. Warawa.

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

I will answer his question directly. He asked me whether there is a trade-off between jobs and the environment. If he asked that question, I guess it's because he believes there is.

What I'm saying, and what others and our modern area and the 21st century are saying is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Just to correct the record, it wasn't what I said; it was what Mr. Ignatieff said. It's a trade-off between jobs and the environment. That was his statement, Mr. Ignatieff's, the former candidate's, not mine.

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

Mr. Chairman, are you going to allow people to talk about leadership for two hours, or do you want us to examine this bill? It's up to you to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, my decision is that I believe we should be discussing this bill. I think that's what members are here for, and I just don't think constant reference is necessary. I think we've all got the point very clearly, and I think we should carry on to discuss this bill. I think it's my job to be here to make that happen. So let's keep it to the subject matter, please.

Mr. Warawa, did you have a comment?