Evidence of meeting #17 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 targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We do, of course, have a friendly amendment, which was accepted, which is the “ultimate objectives of”, which now replaces the targets identified, so—
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Yes, I understand that. Still, that being said, I don't know that it moderates it to the point where the general public, Joe Q. out there, would understand this to be a safe and a careful thing to be doing. It's still committing to some unforeseen things and kind of locks us in, I guess, and I don't think that's a wise course of action.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
First of all, I want to address the comments from Mr. McGuinty. He brought up fundamental mistruths--his phrase--and also elaborated that the government has abandoned the international standards, that we were in breach of these international standards.
He's quite right that the previous government was in breach. The fact is that it was his party, the previous Liberal government, that committed Canada to targets of 6% below 1990 levels. Did we achieve those targets? No. Was it an honest mistake? We're heard over the last two years that no, what happened was they didn't have a plan in place, there was no action taken. There were a lot of announcements, which you would now call greenwashing. There's the sin of greenwashing where a product will be presented as being environmentally friendly when in fact, when you scratch under the surface, it's phony; it's anything but. And that's what the previous Liberal government was guilty of: trying to convince the Canadian public and actually the international stage that they really cared about the environment and were going to take action.
To do something is much more than just accepting a target of 6% below 1990 levels. You have to have action, you have to have substance, you have to have a policy. That's why Bill C-377 concerns me greatly. We've heard Bill C-377 is very similar to what happened with the previous Liberal government, which did breach what they promised internationally and to Canadians. They breached those promises. They abandoned those standards and we ended up with 33% above those targets. It was terrible.
We find ourselves as a nation with an environmental mess, and it was quite embarrassing. We heard from one witness that over the last 12 years, 14 years, 15 years Canada has been embarrassed because of those past actions of inaction.
Bill C-377 will take us down a similar path, with an announcement of great aspirations but no way of achieving it, no plan, no costing, and creating constitutional issues. It sounds good, but there's nothing there. It's like telling somebody we're going to provide you with this but there's nothing there. There's no substance. It's just talk.
So it's very important that Canada does have a plan that's realistic. I believe that the Turning the Corner plan, which has been costed and which has policy attached to it, is going to achieve those targets of absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. That is good. That's good for the environment, it's good for Canadians' reputation.
We heard today in question period, Mr. Chair, that now the NDP, the author of Bill C-377, have admitted they don't know how it's going to be achieved, but the leader of the NDP has a dream.
We've also heard now in QP that they don't support carbon capture and storage. When you go to the international conferences, that's one of the main new technologies providing a technical way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: you capture the carbon dioxide and you pipe it and you inject it back into the earth and you can store it. You can use that for enhanced oil recovery, and it could be stored for millions of years very safely.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Warawa, but it's partly predicated upon our last meeting, in which the government decided to spend two hours talking about not much. I think bringing in issues of the previous Liberal government and bringing in issues of what happened or didn't happen in question period is not conducive to our actually achieving some understanding of this bill and the betterment of the bill.
The government has chosen to bring no amendments forward. If they could please stay on point to the amendment that's been brought that's been friendly amended to make some of the concerns that have already been raised, then they can do so. But they're choosing not to and getting consultations on how to delay further. We're becoming suspicious that this is a filibuster by any other means.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I tend to agree that I would like us to stick to this bill. I think we should be discussing the amendment that's before us, the clause that's before us.
I would ask all members from all parties to please try to stick to the clause that's in front of us and try not to stray too far from where we want to go, because that just leads to other straying--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
--and we go further and further away from the bill. So if we could deal with the bill, I think that's what we should be attempting to do.
Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
I was just responding to some of the concerns and comments made by Mr. McGuinty in relation to clause 5.
It's very important that we shine a light on what Bill C-377 is. Bill C-377 is a very hollow, false bill. It will not accomplish what Canadians want us to.
The other issue is the importance of the amendment. The amendment is to reduce, subject to the ultimate targets of the....
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay--reduce, subject to the ultimate objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Now, we have to make sure that we have the major emitters involved. The negotiations are ongoing. So we have to be very careful. At this point, the negotiations have just begun; they're building that framework for post-2012, and we don't have those. Again, we have Bill C-377 with nothing, no substance to it. They're grasping at straws.
I'm very concerned about the phoniness of this bill.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the government's strategy. What does the amendment say? First, it corrects an oversight in my amendment in that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not identify targets, but rather objectives. Therefore, the NDP amendment corrects this oversight.
The government is opposed to the substance of the amendment which calls for targets in line with the UN Framework Convention. What does this opposition imply? It implies that not only is the government rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, but it is also refusing to subscribe to the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. While the Minister was boasting in Bali of wanting to continue negotiating within the convention's framework, the government is now telling us that it is prepared to defeat an amendment calling for the objectives of the framework convention to be upheld. These objectives are not targets, they are GHG emission stabilization objectives.
I'm also beginning to understand Mr. Johnson's presentation. He said that perhaps the first thing to do is to have emerging countries sit down at the table with G8 countries.
As I understand it, the government is rejecting the objectives set out in the framework convention and in the Kyoto Protocol. What is it exactly that the government wants? Does it want to limit room at the negotiating table to the Asia-Pacific partnership? Is that what it wants?
My motion makes no mention of meeting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol. It refers to the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. My message to the government is clear: if the government and the government party vote against amendment BQ-1, this will mean that the government no longer wants to meet the objectives of the UN framework convention. It will be official. We will ask for a recorded vote and the parliamentary secretary will proceed to vote down this amendment. He will have to bear the consequences of his actions.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think it's important that as we go through this...I'm looking at the progress, because as we all know, we have a deadline to make the proper amendments to this bill.
If my Conservative colleagues have a fundamental problem with the bill, that has been well stated and understood. The bill's passage is now being considered.
I would ask them, when amendments are before them, that they first actually read them and understand what it is they're objecting to before they object. Second, if they actually don't have any additions or changes to make to the bill, we understand and it's been well established that they don't like it. Thank you. But if you're not willing to do the work, the actual work of making a bill better, then I suggest you refrain from comments and use them in the media or back in your householders to your communities.
We've got a motion forward that says that we are encouraging the government to do what it has already committed to doing internationally, so I'm not sure why we're taking 15 or 20 minutes to confirm or deny this, coming from the government benches. Strictly speaking, it's what your minister has already committed to. He's committed to exactly this.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
During the debate, we asked the New Democratic Party to tell us how much this would cost. They didn't answer our question. Now, they are calling for emissions to be cut by 25% compared to 1990 levels, but they have forgotten that absolutely nothing was done between 1997 and 2005. I'm not trying to blame the Liberals. They are no dumber, or smarter, than anyone else. They encountered a problem and fell behind by ten years. To make up for that, major reduction targets were set. There is even talk of cutting current emission levels by 52%. I see this as hypocritical.
Cutting emission levels by 20% by 2020 is not only the highest target set by any G8 country, but the highest set by any world country. This is the highest target in the world, in terms of an absolute reduction in GHG emissions. Yet, here we have a call to raise the target to at least twice the identified level. According to this table, costs would represent 19% of Canada's GDP. For Quebec, these costs would be about 8%. However, for the other provinces, they would represent 37%. In the case of Alberta, the figure is 51%. These numbers also need to be taken into consideration.
This is the only study that we have. I do not think it should be given priority consideration. It may contain some errors. It was submitted to us by a witness. It is the only study that focuses on the economic side of things. To my Ontario friends, I say that for Ontario, this would represent 23% of the GDP. A cost of 5% already means a major recession. With 23%, we can multiply the effects times five.
People may not want to hear this, but this is the reality. Have my Liberal friends actually read this document? Is there another study out there that refutes these claims? We have not seen it. We requested a copy, but we didn't get one. Now we're being told that we are the ones who are wrong and who are not listening. We raised this question before Christmas and we have yet to receive an answer. We've given the opposition three months to respond, but to no avail. Now, we're being told that we are at fault for not going along. One day soon, we will need to set partisan politics aside and get down to the business of finding real solutions.
The 20% target identified by the government is already the most difficult target to achieve of all G8 and world countries. To raise this target to more than twice the identified level in an attempt to comply with standards, while at the same time forgetting that we need to make up for the eleven years we have lagged behind, well, that is serious business. We cannot make up for lost time in the blink of an eye.
I've done some studies. Take the transportation industry, for example. How many years does it take to replace the inventory of vehicles? Studies show that this takes about eight years in Canada. They are claiming that this process will be cost-neutral.
It's ridiculous to suggest that a change which will affect the entire population and industry will not have any major negative effects.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
My previous comments were in reference to the poorly written context of Bill C-377. This government strongly supports the good work of the UNFCCC, and the best way to honour that agreement is to take action, and that is what our government has done with the Turning the Corner plan. Bill C-377 does not have the action plan, and as I said, it's very poorly written. To show the world we care about climate change, we need to take action. Bill C-377 won't do that, so I won't be supporting this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any other comments?
Let me read the amended motion so everybody knows exactly what we have:
The Government of Canada shall ensure that Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, subject to the ultimate objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Everybody has heard the friendly amendment? Good.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 6--Target Plan)