Environment Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

I want to clarify something. Is there money in the 2006-2007 estimates for the eco-trust?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Those were passed by Parliament before the end of March, and that money has left the federal treasury. That was paid for out of last year's budget, and it has already left the federal treasury, so the cheque is more than in the mail; the cheque has actually been cashed. It was $1.519 billion.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You mentioned signals. I'd like to talk about market signals and other signals. Obviously, you must believe that businesses react to signals, that business and industry react to signals. I imagine that's pretty much a basic idea. Do you believe that, yes or no?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

As a general concept, and maybe not in every case, but I think it's important that we send--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, you do, obviously, as a general concept.

It's been said that emissions intensity improved 47% between 1990 and 2004, correct?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd have to turn that over to my officials.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It's been in the newspapers. I think it's been in the National Post. It's been in Le Devoir.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't take as gospel everything I read in the newspapers.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You use quotes from newspapers all the time as gospel in question period.

Anyway, I'm not asking you for a categorical yes or no, but would you not say it's possible that the emissions intensity improvements made between 1990 and 2004 were a result of Canadian industry's reading the signals the Liberal government was giving, which were that we were going to do something about climate change? Would you not agree that it's possible?

We signed the Kyoto agreement; we talked a lot about the Kyoto agreement; we were putting a plan together. Against the wishes of your party, which was threatening to bring down the government, we said we would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under CEPA, and now you're using that tool for your plan, so would you not say that perhaps business was reading the signals and making those emissions intensity reductions? Would you not say it's a possibility? Is it not even in the realm of possibility?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm being really generous to you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Absolutely not. I don't think there was any business leader out there who was scared about the Liberals getting tough on the environment. I have to be honest with you. Maybe I'm wrong. If you can name me one, I'm all ears.

I think Alcan has good corporate responsibility. I don't think they did it because they were afraid of Stéphane Dion. Elizabeth May said the Liberal government in 1997 had the worst environmental record of any government in 20 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Minister and staff, for attending. I think it's been very informative. There weren't many questions on the main estimates. As members know, we will be reporting these back to the House—

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We've heard from the minister twice, once on the supplementary estimates and now on the main estimates, as the committee requested. The time is short, and I'd like to move that we report back the main estimates without changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

As committee members know--and as the parliamentary secretary knows, which is why he just spoke to it--it's clear that in light of my leader giving notice pursuant to the Standing Orders to extend consideration of these estimates by our committee, I suggest we leave consideration of the main estimates to a future meeting. We can take it up on Thursday, or potentially next week.

Notice has been given in the House pursuant to the Standing Orders, which is the privilege of the official opposition. So I'm asking that we hold this in abeyance until future meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is one of many times that the Liberals have attempted to change the decision of the committee. We have an agenda. We were going to deal with the issue of looking at practical solutions on how to deal with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, carbon sequestration, coal-bed methane, and gasification. Those are the three we sidetracked to deal with in Bill C-377. Now again there's an attempt to take us off the agenda, to change the agenda at the last minute.

We've had a good discussion. The main estimates are before us. We need to deal with them and vote to return the main estimates to the House without changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Cullen.

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

I'm attempting to understand this procedure as we go. Is this something the official opposition can do once?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

This might clarify it. Paragraph 81(4)(b) states:

(b) not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 54 of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on "Motions" on the last sitting day prior to May 31;

(c) on the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day

I don't believe that allotted day has been assigned yet.

but in any case not later than ten sitting days following the day on which any motion made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section is adopted, at not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the main estimates for the said department or agency;

Then it goes on. But I think those are the two pertinent sections that apply to this.

So I believe we could take Mr. Warawa's motion, vote on it, amend it—whatever we so choose—and then move forward.

Mr. Warawa, just repeat your motion quickly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's to report back the main estimates to the House without changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Has everybody heard the motion?

Mr. Cullen.

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

Was there a notice of motion, or was this presented just now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's on the subject of today's meeting, which is the main estimates. So it's legitimate to....

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

I'm not contesting whether it's legitimate. I just want to make sure we haven't seen it before.