Evidence of meeting #16 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-377.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Order, please.

Mr. Warawa.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to begin by making a motion, and then speak to it.

In view of the fact that the committee has not completed a proper economic analysis of Bill C-377, including the impact to the Canadian economy and the Canadian consumer in meeting the proposed targets, and that the committee has not properly studied or received guidance with respect to the required amendments dealing with the many constitutional and jurisdictional issues, I therefore move that, in accordance with Standing Order 97.1(1), the committee not proceed further with Bill C-377.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

A point of order.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Bagnell.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Do you not have to have 48 hours notice of motions?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

You do, but this is on the bill that's under discussion, Mr. Bagnell, so you can make a motion on this bill. This is what the agenda states, that we're on Bill C-377.

Yes.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I would like to speak.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Cullen.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

We've heard this from the Conservatives in their questioning and their considerations of the bill. Call the question. We've heard the arguments many, many times. Other than seeking to filibuster or delay, for the committee not to waste its time....

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

You have to let Mr. Warawa speak to his motion so that everybody understands what he's presenting.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I encourage brevity.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I'd like to point out that we heard from the witnesses. The bill has no plan, no substance. It's missing that, and therefore it's a meaningless bill. Also, the bill gives the government no authority to spend any money to have a plan of action, further evidence that it's an empty, hollow bill. Many of us have heard of greenwashing. This is a prime example of greenwashing.

Mr. Chairman, the NDP refused to cost the bill. They even failed to consult with constitutional experts before they wrote the bill. I'd like to refer to the testimony of the author of the bill. When Mr. Layton was here I asked him who prepared the bill, and he shared that Pembina was involved with the writing of the bill. And I asked him about costing the bill. The fact is, I asked every group of witnesses if it had been costed, and Mr. Layton said the bill should be costed. The fact is he said the government should be costing the bill. And he wasn't quite sure what the bill involved, because it was Pembina, he testified, that had—

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Chair, a point of order.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

A point of order, Mr. Cullen.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you.

In his impassioned defence, Mr. Warawa is putting words into the mouths of witnesses who have been before the committee. If he's seeking to destroy efforts to amend the bill.... Many here on the committee have earnestly done their homework. I notice this government has done none of that; they've chosen not to do their work in making the bill better, which I thought was the intention and nature of this committee. If he's going to start smearing witnesses and allege things they said that they did not say, I don't think it behoves his character or the work of this committee.

I'd suggest that if he has considerations and changes he'd like to make to the bill that we proceed to the clause-by-clause, which is the intention of this committee. If he's moving spurious motions just simply to waste time, while that may be his privilege, I don't think it benefits taxpaying citizens.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

The position I'm in, Mr. Cullen, is that, in terms of the legality of the motion, it is in order. He does have a right to speak to that motion, and there's not much I can do, as chair, to change that.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

You may not have been listening as he was going through his so-called evidence, but if he's trying to improve this bill, then I think it's important that he move those amendments, and make them friendly or otherwise.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I'll let this proceed, Mr. Cullen, and listen to the comments.

Mr. Harvey.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

His comment was not a point of order, it was an argument. What I am doing now is a point of order.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Warawa, please continue.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by Mr. Cullen. I was actually just about ready to quote Mr. Layton, so I'd like to continue to do that. He said, in his testimony, “I think of the people who thought about connecting one end of the country to another with a railroad.” This is an analogy he used to help us understand what his vision was for Bill C-377. He went on to say:

Do you think they had it all figured out as to how they were going to pull it off? Do you think they had figured out how they were going to pay for it all? Did they do it perfectly? The answer to all those things would be no, but they had a dream about where they wanted our country to be, and they took on the impossible and they focused on it.

What Mr. Layton has admitted is that he has no idea how it's going to be paid for. He has no idea on the substance of the bill. He even describes it as an impossible dream. And the Liberals break out in song.

We heard in testimony after testimony that this bill should be costed, and there should be an impact assessment. We heard that from every group of witnesses, including Mr. Layton himself. He said that the government should cost it.

The next witness after that was Mr. Bramley, and Mr. Bramley also said that it should be costed. When he was asked about it being costed, he said, “To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done”, referring to the costing.

And then it was actually Mr. Vellacott who said, “So you personally have not done any of the economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada?”, to which Mr. Bramley answered, “No”.

So we're not making up anything here. It's well documented in the blues that the bill hasn't been costed. It's void of substance. It will not stand a constitutional challenge. I believe it was even a member from the Bloc who said that this bill needs to be totally rewritten.

One of the greatest hypocrisies that the NDP could put on us is if they wanted to substantially amend their own bill, because a substantial number of witnesses who came before our committee said it was fraught with problems, and I've just touched on a few. So they brought to committee a bill that is poorly written, not costed, which will not stand up constitutionally, and now they want to totally rewrite the bill.

The motion I made is relevant because I think the bill needs to be totally redone before it comes back here.

I personally believe that Canada does have a turning-the-corner plan, which is supported by Parliament. It was part of our Speech from the Throne, and it was supported by this government and this Parliament. That is the Canadian plan, the turning-the-corner plan, which has very definite targets of absolute reduction of 20% by 2020, and 60% to 70% reductions by 2050. And those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

During the hearings on Bill C-30 the NDP tried to write in medium- and long-term targets that appeared in Bill C-377. The Liberals opposed them by saying those targets were too tough. You can check the record.

The fact is, I have a quote from Mr. McGuinty here saying,

I think we'd have some difficulty, Mr. Chair, in increasing this number for fear that it would not fit with so many of the achievable outcomes that we heard about from different expert witnesses.

And then he went on to say, “We do not accept the friendly amendment.”

That was on March 27 of last year in the committee studying Bill C-30.

I have another quote here, and it was from Mr. Godfrey. On March 27 he said,

Like previously, we certainly wish to be ambitious, but also we want to be realistic. But concern and prudence for giving ourselves a bit of room to manoeuvre, as we have done on the 2020 target, means that we can't accept this, much as we'd like to, as a friendly amendment.

He was referring to the amendment from the NDP. That was again at the committee studying Bill C-30 on March 27.

Yet four weeks later, on April 30 of last year, the Liberals voted to support those targets in the House of Commons. Do they now disagree with the targets that they wrote into Bill C-30? I'm not sure. There appears to be a flip-flop from the leader of the opposition and also from his environmental critic.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the NDP hypocrisy on the environment. Just what is the position of the NDP leader in short-, medium-, and long-term targets on greenhouse gas reductions?

Recently Mr. Layton and the NDP have supported two different positions: the targets they wrote with the Liberals into Bill C-30, which could have cost Canadian families and businesses 275,000 jobs and sent gasoline prices soaring to $1.60 a litre, and now even tougher targets on this bill that would harm the economy even further. The NDP are being hypocritical by supporting two different positions. When will they come clean with Canadians about their real position on greenhouse gas emission targets?

Mr. Chair, the turning-the-corner plan is the first time ever that the federal government focuses on mandatory requirements for industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We will take immediate action by implementing mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down. The turning-the-corner plan takes us in the right direction.

Another relevant piece I would like to introduce is a letter addressed to you, Mr. Chair, from Sheila Fraser. This is in response to Bill C-377 and what the NDP did in drafting this poorly written bill. This is the response from Sheila Fraser:

I am writing to provide you with comments on Bill C-377, which I understand is currently before your committee. In preparing this letter, I have consulted with the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Ron Thompson. Although we appreciate the confidence shown in the work of our Office by the drafters of the bill, we do have serious concerns with section 13. Put simply, this section would require the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to undertake two types of work that are inconsistent with both its legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. First, paragraph 13(l)(a) would require us to determine the likelihood of certain measures attaining results in the future. Our audit mandate is different and requires us to examine and report on what has happened, rather than what may or may not happen. Second, paragraph 13(l)(b) would require us to give policy advice to the Minister or the Governor in Council. This is inconsistent with our legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. Our role is to provide Parliament with objectively determined and credible audit findings. I hope that these comments will be helpful to you and your committee. I would be pleased to elaborate on them at your convenience.

I think that might be helpful.

I'd like to share with the committee a few of the other comments. As I said, I asked each group whether there should be an economic analysis on this, and every group said yes.

These are some of the comments that I have highlighted from Professor John Stone:

I certainly have been very encouraged by the words that I've heard from the present government, Mr. Warawa, of their intentions to tackle the issue.

He was referring to our turning-the-corner plan.

Of course, we need to cost whatever plans they have from whatever party we have and in whichever country we're talking about. That's only good public policy. I will just have to assume that whatever plans are presented to Parliament and to the Government of Canada and to Canadians are properly costed. Yes, I agree with you.

So there's another example of Dr. Stone saying that it has to be costed.

We've heard from Jack Layton that it wasn't costed and that he wants it costed. He's recommending that it be costed.

So we're really putting the horse before the cart by going ahead without it being costed.

I brought this up a number of times, Chair, that it should be costed, and yet we're moving ahead. They're wanting to move ahead. It takes time to do this properly, but no, there's not an appetite to do this properly. They want to greenwash this bill.

Dr. Stone went on and said the following:

I don't see that Bill C-377 is necessarily inconsistent with where our present government is going, nor indeed with the aspirational statements I've heard from other parties. My sense is that slowly—and I emphasize slowly—we seem to be coming to a consensus amongst parties in Canada that in fact this is an issue we cannot afford not to tackle. I've been encouraged by what the present government is saying in its levels of targets and the like.

So we have, again, support for our turning-the-corner plan. Parliament has taken a position that the targets of 20% reduction, absolute reduction, by 2020—and these are post-Kyoto, post-2012 targets—and 60% to 70% reduction by 2050 are realistic and achievable, and they have been costed. The position of Parliament is that this is the plan of Canada.

For the NDP to introduce Bill C-377, a bill that hasn't been costed, that will not stand up constitutionally, that has no policy attached to it.... These are just vague, meaningless targets. The bill has to be totally rewritten. We've heard that it would give the federal government sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces, which would raise real concerns provincially and constitutionally.

So it's a poorly written bill. I think my motion that it not proceed, which would result in it going back to the House, is the right motion.

I look forward to other comments, particularly on the costing aspect and the constitutionality of this.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Harvey, then Mr. Vellacott.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

I would like to hear my colleagues opposite. So I am going to waive my right to speak and I will do so after Mr. Vellacott because I want to hear their opinion.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Well, I'm not seeing any comment, Mr. Harvey, so I would suggest....

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Bagnell wanted to speak.