Environment Committee on March 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, NDP-5 on page 16.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I believe the NDP had six amendments. Basically what we have seen in the amendments is a rewriting of the bill. It reads:

(c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I think it's important that we focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We heard from the witnesses that there's not enough policy attached to this that will actually see reductions. There's no mechanism to make sure this is happening, and I don't believe Bill C-377--and this is just one part of it--will accomplish this. In the end, Canada needs a plan that will actually see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We also need to cost the plan. We have that in Canada's Turning the Corner plan. We don't see that in Bill C-377, and we heard that from witness after witness.

So that will end my comments on this amendment. Again, I have some serious concerns about Bill C-377. Canada has a plan, and Bill C-377 will not accomplish anything. We heard that from the witnesses too.

I will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I was going to remark that in respect to some of the comments I was going to make, they were actually said by Mr. Warawa.

But I think some of the things we see in this one and in the subsequent clauses as well are things that are actually covered off by our government--actually, fairly well--and that's the important thing. A number of the clauses that are coming up now were in our Turning the Corner plan. We've actually dealt with that. We've made the kinds of commitments to deal with this stuff. In our Turning the Corner plan we're delivering some of those measures, those very things that were requested by Mr. Cullen and that I guess others from the NGO communities have suggested as well.

Regarding the polluter-pay principle, our plan recognizes that all Canadians, not just businesses but individuals, have to fight against climate change, and that, without question, industry has to do its part.

So for some of the things we're moving into now, where we are proposing some things that are already being done or will be done in days ahead, I don't see the point of it. I think Mr. Cullen, in reading more carefully some of the details of the Turning the Corner plan, would recognize that too. That's what I would submit to him and ask him to look at some more. Some of the very things he aspires to do, through his leader here, are issues that are already covered off.

Those are my remarks at present on this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to belabour the point on this one, but I'm looking at clause 10. The mention of “spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry”--I think I know where that comes from. I think it comes from a Canadian Labour Congress proposal. But there's not a lot there that discusses what the just transition fund in fact will be, what it will look like, how it will be used. I do recall that it was a just transition fund for workers, not for industry specifically as well, so the language is exclusive to that.

At our meeting of Wednesday, February 6, we had economists here. We not only had the Canadian Council of Chief Executives represented, but the Canadian Gas Association was here. The one who was actually an economist, Mr. David Sawyer with EnviroEconomics, talked about significant economic dislocations, and he modelled some costs for the benefit of the committee. I think he said that Bill C-377 would be somewhere around $200 a tonne in terms of the price of carbon.

I did ask some questions about some of the fiscal incentives, though, some of the other things that were not present in the economic analysis. I asked about income replacement costs, which is what I suspect the just transition fund is all about, and whether or not the cost of that was addressed in the carbon price he had set. He said, “We don't have numbers for lost income, but you could look at the burden on households, and you could look at the burden on the various income strata”, and then policy could be used to address that.

I just want a clarification. Is the just transition fund intended to address income replacement? Is it for capital investment? I'm not entirely sure what he means by “just transition fund”. It's the only one of the fiscal incentives that's actually specifically mentioned. I'd like him to be specific about what that would entail with respect to the government. It's more of a question than a....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, do you wish to comment on that?

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

The measure Mr. Watson is referring to is one of the options put forward to the government. Just transition measures have been used by governments in the past consistently when allowing transition from one type of work to another. Governments have cited them in resource-based economies that have made the shift. The government's own billion-dollar announcement for primary resource economies mentions just transition funds. It's a common use.

It's not prescribed in the bill, and I'll remind government members that if they're looking for prescriptive details of what each portion of the reduction should be, this bill never sought to do that. The criticisms are unwarranted, because the bill never sought to do that. The bill sets the framework for the targets and the establishment of those targets and offers government the use of its own intelligence, resources, and knowledge, a portion of which will be adjusted by this.

So the just transition fund is mentioned as a mechanism that government may or may not choose to use. There's no prescription in it. It's relying on a great wealth of intelligence within this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, is that acceptable?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You heard your answer.

Mr. Harvey, please.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

We've been at this for two years. Last year, we really focused on CO2 and emissions. We dealt with Bill C-30, and now we're dealing with C-377. Last week, the governments of Alberta and Ontario announced major initiatives aimed at dramatically reducing GHG emissions.

For the first time since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, provincial governments are taking concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions. For now our efforts are focused on CO2 emissions, but it is also important that we do some studies on CH4, or methane, and on gases such as S03 and S04. When I think about water quality and the presence of blue algae, I can't help thinking that despite our spirited efforts, we are missing the boat to some extent.

We have asked the leader of the NDP to cost out his bill, but he has yet to give us any figures. We're told that this is similar to the Grand Trunk project in that it cannot be costed. Yet, the figure mentioned in some studies is 99% of the GDP of certain provinces. I am not talking about 9% or 10%, but about 99%. That would not have just the effect of a recession, but the effect of an atomic bomb. The NDP continues to shy away from examining the costs and maintains that this initiative is similar to the Grand Trunk project. I am sorry, but I think we have a very serious problem on our hands.

All of the proposals that have been put forward during the study of this bill deserve to be considered. Asking how much it will cost to implement this bill is not asking too much. The cost should factor into the decision that each party and each member will have to make. It is all well and good to draft a bill that is feasible in principle, but its provisions must be realistic. We have repeatedly requested a cost estimate, but each time, we are told that it would take too long to provide one. Yet, we think this step is absolutely necessary.

Even if we do act very quickly, expenses now being incurred in Alberta will not apply before 2017, since the feasibility studies still need to be done. Even if we already have an idea of what it would cost to build a nuclear power plant, it will still take four years to carry out these studies. This bill not only affects energy production, but the manufacturing sector, heavy industry and the automobile industry as well. It is all well and good to want to get 35 miles to the gallon, but the reality is that Canada is not about to develop its own automobile engine. Once again, it will depend on efforts at the global level. We will not be the solution, but merely a part of the solution. We are fooling ourselves with theoretical ideas that are not practicable.

On numerous occasions, we have asked to see the plan and to know the costs associated with implementing this bill, but all we received were vague answers. It's getting out of hand. I am trying to keep an open mind and to convince myself that we are promoting environmental issues, but the reality is that I am not at all convinced that this is our objective. I do not think that we are really trying to resolve the problem. Instead, I think we are looking for an opportunity to say that others have failed to achieve these targets.

Last month, an article on climate change appeared in Science & Vie. The article was neither left-leaning nor right-leaning, but rather more scientific in nature. Some interesting broad principles may be expounded, but when the time comes to examine the ramifications of a decision, we realize that these may go against stated aims.

A good example of this is methanol produced from corn or other grains. In some Third World countries, the cost of grain has doubled or even tripled. As a result, famines have occurred. Where this type of farming has been carried out, blue or green algae has become a problem. Water table levels have fallen sharply due to the higher volume of water needed to grow these grain crops. What are the overall repercussions?

While 10% of the crops are used for ethanol production, serious famine conditions have been created in certain countries. It is important to weigh the situation, Mr. Cullen. This may not be an important principle to your way of thinking, but I see that you are paying close attention to what I am saying. The important thing here is to know what direction we want to take. It is not simply a matter of saying that we will reduce emission levels. We need to have a clear picture of the costs and repercussions.

Before tabling this bill, the NDP should have made sure that what is was proposing was feasible and should have had the supporting figures in hand. It has asked the government to do studies on its own bill and subsequently, it has pressured the government to pass the bill even before these studies have been completed. The NDP and the other opposition parties may still have some work to do in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

I believe, Mr. Warawa, you are next.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I have, through you, a couple of questions for Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Harvey touched on the costing. The concern we've heard from the Conservative members is that this hasn't been costed. The fact is that the first meeting of Bill C-377 was with Mr. Layton, the sponsor of the bill. The first question I asked was whether they had costed the plan. He said it was up to the government to cost the plan.

My question, through you, Chair, is to Mr. Cullen. Mr. Layton wants the government to cost the plan. As every witness group has recommended, it should be costed. When does the NDP want this to be costed--before this bill is adopted or after the bill is adopted? When in the process would he support having it costed before it moves on from this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, did you get the gist of the question?

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

Yes.

As I mentioned earlier in our conversation today, to clarify for the government members--because it doesn't seem to be getting through yet--the objective and essence of Bill C-377 are to lay out the framework, to allow for greater accountability, in terms of what the government plans to do and what the government has actually performed on. I know that when these members were in opposition, this was a great concern they had. As far as the planning and the actual costing of the measures taken by government go, we hope the government would do so in the most efficient way, because they claim to be one of accountability and efficiency.

The bill was never presented as having within it the actual detailed plan. The parliamentary secretary continues to talk about the costing of the planning in Bill C-377 when he has heard time and time again that Bill C-377 never attempts to seek that. But Bill C-377 very clearly lays out finally in law...so that governments cannot weasel out, can't change baselines, can't misreport to Canadians, must tell the truth about climate change, and must tell the truth about what their plans are with respect to climate change. This is the effort.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Cullen didn't answer my question. I'll change the terminology and maybe we can get an answer from Mr. Cullen.

Every group was asked if the plan should be costed, and every witness group, and Mr. Layton, said yes. Maybe now Mr. Layton is reconsidering. The last group of witnesses we heard from used the term “impact analysis”, and they said, yes, Bill C-377 should have an impact analysis. They recommended that Bill C-377 not go forward until an impact analysis is done.

I'm looking for a report that I had here, or actually a statement, from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas. She was referring to previous failures on the environment and she was referring to the Kyoto target. She said:

We expected that the federal Liberal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 [...] we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

This is the Commissioner of the Environment, and she is warning indirectly in her words, if we heed her wise words, that it didn't work before. What Mr. Cullen is proposing didn't work before, and it won't work with Bill C-377. We've heard every witness group say that Bill C-377 needs to have this impact analysis, just as the former Commissioner of the Environment recommended should have happened before but didn't.

My question again, through you, Chair, to Mr. Cullen, is why is the NDP resisting what the witness groups are saying, that we need to have an impact analysis? If he doesn't want to use the term “cost analysis”, the term “impact analysis” is much greater, much more in-depth.

Why is he resisting having that done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This criticism has been raised by the government members time and time again. We've answered it time and time again. They are unsatisfied with the response. That's fine.

All four government members have now spoken to this particular amendment. I suggest that we move on. There is no suggestion of any amendment brought forward by government. They clearly don't like this particular clause. They don't like the bill. That's fine. That's their choice and purview, and they will express that, I imagine, in their vote.

I've answered the question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a follow-up question for Mr. Cullen. I wish he would answer the question, because again, he's suggesting that Bill C-377 proceed without the impact analysis, which is against every bit of advice we've been hearing.

We heard from witnesses some serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-377. The bill would give sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces. There were these jurisdictional issues. They said there was no meat on the bones, so to speak. There were targets set without any costing, without any plan.

I believe it was a Bloc member who said that Bill C-377 needed to be rewritten. If wasn't the Bloc, then it was some member of the opposition who said, when we were hearing from the witnesses on, I believe, the jurisdictional issues, that Bill C-377 basically needed to be totally rewritten.

Now, if the sweeping amendments that we're seeing are all passed and we have a new, rewritten Bill C-377, would Mr. Cullen be willing to have the witnesses come back and share with this committee whether or not Bill C-377 addresses their concerns, particularly on the jurisdictional issues? The NDP is resisting doing any costing or impact analysis, but would they be willing to have the constitutional experts come back and say whether or not, with the amendments being proposed, their concerns with regard to jurisdictional issues have been dealt with? Would he accept that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

The parliamentary secretary knows better. He understands how the committee process actually works. The order is as follows: we hear the bill; we hear witnesses to the bill; committee members do their homework; they create amendments based upon the evidence to address the concerns raised by witnesses, as the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc have done but the government has chosen not to do; and then we vote upon those amendments. That is the process.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair--

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

Chair, he has chosen not to bring a single amendment to the table. He has this long list of concerns that do more to run out the clock than they do to actually improve the bill.

As they have chosen not to do the homework, I would suggest to the government members that they express their concerns, repeat them as they do, and that we then move to the vote. Otherwise, it is breaking and eroding that simple trust factor that we had. If the work is serious, if the intention is serious, then I would imagine there'd be some papers with the words “Conservative amendment” written on them here today, and there are not. To go back and revisit witnesses and prescribe some new process of how to deal with legislation, while perhaps novel, is not instructive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa, I think your point has been made. There are several other speakers, so could you just get right to it?