Environment Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

But it has to be relevant, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And I have reminded him of that several times.

I am going on. I have four other speakers now who want to comment on this. Then it will ultimately go to a vote of the committee. The vote then will be reported to the House. Then we'll come back to the original motion. So we have two votes basically and we have a vote on the extension, which is Mr. Cullen's original motion.

So I am asking Mr. Warawa again to talk about his point of privilege, please. Then I'm going to Messrs. Watson, Harvey, Vellacott, and Godfrey.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the interruption from the member shows the seriousness. He said this meeting has something to do with carbon dioxide. Well, Chair, I'm not sure what committee he's just come from, but this is the environment committee. We're talking about Bill C-377, and that's exactly what this is about. It's reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is one of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me.

Yes, Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

If I'm not mistaken, the point of privilege is on whether or not he should be allowed to speak, not on the environmental portfolio at all. Am I correct or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You are correct.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

So why is he talking about the environment committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The point of privilege is that he was interrupted from speaking about what he wanted to speak about.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

But he has to prove to other members that he has a right to speak right now, not on whether or not the environment--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, that's what we are going to vote on.

Again, the clerk advises me I can cut you off. I've been attempting to make it as open as possible, as always. But I have asked you a number of times now to stay on topic and come to the point. Perhaps you could do that, and then we'll go to Mr. Watson and the others.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

Chair, I do appreciate that. I'm concerned that the privileges I have, according to the Standing Orders and Marleau and Montpetit, were taken away by the NDP, who did not permit me to share the concerns I have about Bill C-377. I share with Mr. Simard the concern that this is a very important issue, and that we have regulations and legislation in Canada that will accomplish something. That's why the Turning the Corner plan, Chair, under which you have absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% reductions by 2050, is important. And we have that in the works. It's done by regulation. We're moving from voluntary, which we had with the previous Liberal government, to mandatory, which will affect every industrial sector in Canada, Chair. We didn't have that with the Liberals. With Bill C-377, we don't have that.

Chair, the NDP took away or attempted to take away the privilege, so as not to permit members of this committee to be able to share those concerns. One of those concerns came from Mr. Peter Hogg. Chair, Peter Hogg is a professor at Osgoode Hall. He's the dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. He's a well-respected person, and he came with huge concerns about Bill C-377.

He said:

Bill C-377, the Climate Change Accountability Act, First Reading October 31, 2006, is a bill with the purpose of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (s. 3). By s. 5, it provides that the Government of Canada “shall ensure” that Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Bill itself makes no provision for the achievement of these targets....

That was my very point. The NDP wanted nobody to know about that, but Mr. Hogg picked up on that right away.

The Bill itself makes no provision for the achievement of these targets, leaving that entirely to regulations to be made by the Governor in Council. Section 7(1) provides that “The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act”. Section 7(2) provides that “The Governor in Council shall make regulations to ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under s. 5”.

Mr. Chair, he went on to say:

Putting the Government of Canada’s obligation under s. 7(2) into a realistic context, I note that Canada signed the Kyoto Accord in 1997 and committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions down to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. At the time of signing, Canada’s emissions levels were already 13 per cent above 1990 levels. I am reliably informed that the level of emissions is now 33 per cent above 1990 levels.

And he's quite right.

He went on to say:

Canada’s economy and population continues to grow, increasing the demand for energy. Obviously radical changes in the behaviour of Canadians would be needed to take the level of emissions down from 33 per cent above 1990 levels to 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

That's only 12 years away.

He also went on to say:

Since government incentives and exhortations to voluntary reductions have not halted the trend of rising emissions, very severe and [persuasive] regulatory restrictions on activities that produce emissions would be necessary to actually reverse the rising trend and reduce greenhouse gas emissions sharply enough to reach the Bill C-377 target for 2020.

The need for strong and [persuasive] regulations to meet the Bill C-377 target for 2020 is especially the case since Bill C-377 is not a tax measure and does not authorize the imposition of carbon taxes.

Many economists have advocated the view that taxes are the most effective means of changing behaviour to reduce greenhouse emissions. Economists point out that carbon taxes could be revenue neutral by being balanced with cuts in income taxes (or other taxes). The Parliament of Canada has unlimited taxing powers, and so this would raise no constitutional issues. However, no taxes are authorized in Bill C-377, none were proposed by the previous Liberal government and none have been proposed by the present Conservative government.

He's quite right. We believe that Canadians are overtaxed, and we believe in lower taxes. For Liberals, on the other hand, there isn't a tax they see that they wouldn't like to raise.

The Parliament of Canada has two heads of legislative power that might be invoked as the authority to enact Bill C-377. One is the criminal law power and the other is the peace, order, and good government power. In my opinion, neither of those powers will support a law that is as broad and vague as Bill C-377. I will briefly discuss each of these powers in turn--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has descended into farce. I really would ask you to exercise your authority now as chair. Mr. Warawa has been filibustering now for exactly 29 minutes. He has had 32 minutes, in fact, on this point of privilege. He doesn't have 32 minutes. He doesn't have the right to speak for 32 minutes, Mr. Chair, on a point of privilege.

You have not exercised your authority. I think what I would request is that we put this matter of point of privilege to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I have to hear other comments, Mr. McGuinty.

I think we have heard enough, Mr. Warawa. I think you've made your point of privilege, and I would like to go on to Mr. Watson, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Vellacott, and Mr. Godfrey.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, is there a time limit on the amount of time I have for a point of privilege?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's a matter of staying on the subject, I believe. It's a matter of a point of privilege, and we're going to vote on it. Everybody has heard the point of privilege, and I think we're now into testimony. This is the sort of thing that would fit into debate on the bill, but I'm not sure it does on your point of privilege.

What I would like to do is hear what Mr. Watson has to say about the point of privilege and try to focus on that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a lot more to share, and if the committee is not wanting to hear more, and if there will be further opportunity to speak, I'll be glad to share that later on and allow others to speak. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, certainly within the context of the amendments, you'll be allowed to speak and speak to those amendments. There are a number of other amendments you may have difficulty with.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

One closing comment, Chair, is that I would not have used my point of privilege if I hadn't had the NDP use the tactic of trying to close off debate. So I had to then invoke the point of privilege to share some very important..... Because, Chair, whether it's Bill-377 or any piece of legislation, it has to be a piece of legislation that has substance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me, Mr. Warawa, Mr. McGuinty has another point of order.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Can I get clarification from you and the table here? I raised a point of order asking to call the vote on this point of privilege. You're suggesting that we have to hear from other interveners who want to address this point of privilege. Once the request is made to call the vote on this point of privilege, doesn't that supercede this notion of having to hear anybody else and any other MP on this issue? That's a point of procedural clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, just to answer, and I think we've clarified, again, we have gotten into the committees being master of their own fates. What happens in the House is something quite different.

When we had the vote rejecting my decision, I did make that decision as the chair to listen to Mr. Warawa's point of privilege. I think, however, he has more than made his point of privilege. So what I would rule now is that we go to the other people—and I ask them to be very brief—on the point of privilege, that at ten after five we vote on this point of privilege and either report it back to the House or not, and then we vote on the original motion, Mr. Cullen's motion, which is that we extend this for 30 sitting days, and we then go and vote in the House.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, is that a proposal you're making to the committee members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's what I'm suggesting. That's what I'm ruling we do. Of course, that can be challenged, but that's what I'm ruling. That way, we complete today and we can carry on tomorrow.