Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could we get started, please.

Just for the record, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol is the item for debate today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 will be postponed to the end of the proceedings, and we will begin with clause 2.

Does everyone have copies of the amendments that have been proposed? I think the clerk has handed those out, and everyone should have copies.

So we're all set? Yes.

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

I have a question, Mr. Chair. Regarding the order of it, is it required that the preamble always be done at the very end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's always at the end, yes.

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

In terms of sequence, can there be any prefatory comments made that reference the preamble?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

There is a standing order that says that clause 1 and the title and preamble are treated at the end, yes.

Is everyone ready? Does everyone have the copies of the amendments? We'll begin with clause 2.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

Is there any discussion on clause 2?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is it clause 2 or—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's clause 2 of the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So the preamble and title are both at the end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

They're at the end, yes.

So we're beginning with clause 2.

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

Mr. Chair, just to make sure I understand, all of the amendments are arranged sequentially, including both opposition and government, and everything else?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's correct, and they'll be dealt with clause-by-clause, so that we will begin with clause 2, clauses 3 and 4 to clause 11. Where the amendments fit in is where we will deal with them. We of course can discuss every clause, and if there's no discussion, we will then pass that clause and move on.

Is everybody onside, ready to go? We'll begin with clause 2, then.

Is there any discussion on clause 2? Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, in light of the witnesses' testimony, I think if you went by percentage, 95% to 99% of the witnesses said that what this bill, Bill C-288, is attempting to achieve is not achievable. We have heard comments to the effect that this would have been relevant in 1998 but is not now. The last witness we heard from in the group of witnesses concerning—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me, Mr. Warawa. A point of order, Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you.

I guess we're currently looking at amendment G-3. Is that correct?

[An hon. member]

No.

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

No? Are we having a general discussion about clause 2?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, we're discussing clause 2. We do not have a motion at this point to discuss, so we are looking at just clause 2 without the amendments.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is going to be whether the author of the bill, Mr. Rodriguez, is still intending to proceed to clause-by-clause. That will be fine, but it will be quite surprising to me in light of the testimony that we've received. Even as recently as the beginning of this week, on Tuesday, we heard damning witness testimony against Bill C-288. And to look at the expressions on the face of the Liberal members, I assumed they would have been removing this bill as being irrelevant and not achievable.

So just for clarification, is it the intent of Mr. Rodriguez to proceed to clause-by-clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, did you get the question?

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

I did, but what about him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The answer is yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's fine. We will proceed to clause-by-clause. Obviously Mr. Rodriguez was not listening to the witnesses, but we will proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on clause 2?

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

Out of respect for the Committee, I will not comment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We're going to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair. We will not be supporting clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(On clause 3--Purpose)