Environment Committee on March 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I believe you have a motion you want to put.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development be authorized to continue its deliberations beyond March 5, 2008, and to present its final report no later than May 7, 2008.

The intention of the motion is to be able to extend hearings on this bill. We've had some delays and we've also had some good progress.

We're seeking to ensure that we report back to the House the best bill that we possibly can. The extension we're proposing is 30 days, if necessary. Ideally, we'd like to get through it today. We think we got through much of the bill in our last meeting. There are only four clauses left to go through, and I believe we can get it done today, if committee members are earnest and put their efforts towards it.

So I would like to move this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So that everyone understands the motion, obviously I need to report that back to the House by tomorrow at three o'clock. If we do require an extension, this would then facilitate 30 sitting days for us to deal with this motion, which I assume comes to whatever May date that was, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that we had dealt with this motion. I spoke in good faith and presented this motion a few meetings ago, sharing with this committee that we needed more time. We heard from every witness group that we needed to have an impact analysis on this. I asked every group, and every group said, yes, we needed to have it.

Just thinking back to when Mr. Layton came...and I paraphrased him, I didn't give an exact quote, but if Mr. Cullen would like me to provide an exact quote, I will, because I have that in my package here.

At any rate, I was quite shocked when Mr. Layton said that Bill C-377 was presented to this committee as a dream but with no substance. It was a dream. He used the analogy of the railway, that they didn't know how they were going to build it but somehow, hopefully, they'd have it. He had no idea about the costing of this, about the impact analysis that we heard every witness group recommend.

What I did, Mr. Chair, was to recommend that we extend this. The committee said, no, they were quite sure they could ram Bill C-377 through with bare bones.

We heard that the federal government would receive these unlimited, unprecedented powers over all the provinces, and I was quite shocked to see that the Bloc supported that. We as a government respect provincial jurisdiction; no, they wanted to force Bill C-377 through as quickly as possible, without further consultation, when we were advised by these witnesses that there should be an impact analysis.

What I have to share in speaking to this motion will hopefully be quite thorough and will provide some direction to the committee in terms of where I'm coming from. I'm speaking to this motion to extend in frustration that this was not dealt with properly in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I was doing some research earlier today. I have a quote here from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas, referring to the Kyoto targets on climate change:

We expected that the federal government

—referring to the then Liberal government—

would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998...

Then she went on to say:

...we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

We all know what happened to the previous government's commitment to Kyoto. They signed on to 6% below 1990 levels. Did we achieve that as a country? No, we did not.

I believe the commissioner gave us some really clear direction on what we need to do as the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We need to provide that analysis; otherwise, we're doomed to repeat the same mistake made by the previous Liberal government. You have these lofty ideas...and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that the motives were right, but without a plan, without knowing what it's going to cost, without a policy attached, whether it's done in a very short period of time or a long period of time, you will not be successful.

I take the issue of climate change and I take the issue of a warming climate very seriously, as I know the minister and the Prime Minister do. We have to present research. A costing, an impact analysis, has to be part of the equation.

By extending this for another few weeks, with no commitment from the NDP to provide the proper economic, social, and environmental risk analyses of Bill C-377, I'm concerned that we're going down the path to nowhere—with “nowhere” referring to where we will be at the end of the day.

We already have a very good plan, the Turning the Corner plan, from the government, which I'll share and elaborate on in a minute. Again, I just want to share with the committee how important it is that if we do extend it, that it be done with a plan, a commitment, that we are going to make sure that we have this analysis done that we heard about from every group.

Without it, as I said earlier, we're doomed to failure, as we saw with the Liberal Party. Their commitment was to 6% below 1990 levels, and we ended up being 33% above that target—not even close to the target. We see the same thing with Bill C-377. We have no bones; we have no policy, no costing, no impact. They want to move forward with an extension of a few weeks, but they do not want to consider the facts. They do not want to consider where this is going to take Canada and even if it is achievable.

We know that the plan the government has, with a target of a 20% reduction—an absolute reduction—by 2020, is achievable. It's been costed, it's planned, and there is a notice of intent and a gazetting coming. With the Turning the Corner plan we have a realistic plan and a further commitment of 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

Mr. Chairman, that is one of the toughest targets in Canadian history; it is the toughest target, and it's one of the toughest in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hate to interrupt the parliamentary secretary when he's in full flight about the thing he's been in full flight about for months now with no success.

The specific motion that has been put before the committee is a consideration of an extension. The parliamentary secretary is now talking about previous governments.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

I'm not sure if Mr. Watson is trying to contribute to debate by heckling, showing his grace and class, as always.

The exact commission of this motion is to see that the committee has afforded time, partly in reflection of the fact that the government has chosen to filibuster a previous committee meeting, and I'm now starting to get the sense that they're choosing to use the same tactic with this one. I hope that's not the case.

This motion speaks very clearly to the extension of the meeting. The parliamentary secretary asked for this, and I will remind him—just to make sure the record is clear—that at the beginning of these proceedings I committed to being open to an extension if, for whatever reasons, there were delays. That is exactly what's happened here today. I'm not sure if the parliamentary secretary remembers that conversation, but that's how it came to be when we initially came to this calendar.

Now that we have arrived here, the government has wasted a meeting in the last week's session. It appears now that they're choosing to do it again. I would ask the parliamentary secretary, if he's supportive of this, to say so. If he's not, then say so, and then let's move on and hear other committee members and get to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I thank you for your clarification. I think everybody who was here remembers that we did talk about an extension and that you did commit that if we got down to the wire, we would in fact have a look at an extension at that time. Your motion is clear and you've clarified it.

I would again ask the parliamentary secretary to deal with this motion for an extension of 30 sitting days, which begin today. Could you just address that and deal with Mr. Cullen's motion, please?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm attempting to speak specifically to this motion and not go off topic. I'm sharing how important it is that we have a commitment to the petitioner of this bill, the NDP, that we are committed to a conclusion that will be good for the environment globally and for the environment in Canada. His motion is taking us down a pathway to nowhere by continuing to use Bill C-377 with no impact analysis. The NDP's plan is to continue with Bill C-377 as we see it being presented to this point. If it does not have what the witnesses say needs to be part of it, then whether we go through clause-by-clause and end today or end after a 30-day extension, the result will be the same: we will have a bill that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will not have the positive effect Canadians want.

I've made comments before about how important it is that our commitments, projects, products, and bills really address the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard that Bill C-377 won't do that. So I'm encouraging the NDP, represented by Mr. Cullen, to provide clarity to this committee that Bill C-377 is a good bill.

We've heard from witnesses that it's not a good bill; it's missing what it needs to have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the end. It's so vague that it's meaningless. That was in my beginning comments, when I shared what the commissioner shared. The commissioner said in a report to Parliament how important it was to have those parts of a bill. She said we need to conduct the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses. Without that it will not be successful.

Just by the House of Commons passing Bill C-377 and moving to the House and then on to the Senate does not mean it will be successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether we have this extension or not--again speaking to the motion. What is critical for the success of Parliament and the environment is that Bill C-377 is dramatically improved so that during the extension period--if that's the will of the committee--we end up with a product that will do something.

At this point, our Turning the Corner plan gives that direction to Parliament. It includes the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses the commissioner is recommending. So at the end of the day you already have in place the Turning the Corner plan that goes through the process of becoming a regulation. It's good and has what the commissioner is recommending; Bill C-377 doesn't.

So the extension that's being asked for by the NDP will not give us the end result. We heard very clearly from the witnesses that even with this extension, it will not give the results that Parliament wants and that the international community wants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I'd like to call the question on the motion, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Warawa is dealing with his reasoning for appearing to oppose your motion to extend this. I've been listening very carefully to see if he's on topic. I believe he's staying on topic and talking about why he feels this should not be extended.

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

I understand that perception. He may stay on topic and continue to filibuster and prevent the committee from moving on. If that is your ruling on his accordance, I'll challenge your ruling on this. There's no debate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, you haven't made a ruling.

[An hon. member]

He just did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I was prepared to let you carry on, Mr. Warawa. That was my ruling, because I felt you were staying on topic—and Mr. Cullen has challenged that ruling.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, this is an abuse—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's not debatable, Mr. Warawa, so those who—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of privilege, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

It's not a debatable motion. We do need to vote on this motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

But can I raise a point of privilege?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

After we have the vote.

Those in favour?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I just need a clarification on what the vote is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The vote is that—