Evidence of meeting #24 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Very quickly, Mr. Warawa, can we get on to Mr. Harvey? We really don't need to....
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
--set an atmosphere where Mr. McGuinty will cease his interruptions. They have to be procedurally related. They are not procedurally related, and he keeps doing it, Chair. What I'd ask, Chair, is that when he raises these points of order, which are not points of order--
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
On a point of order. That is a personal attack on me. He is the one filibustering. I don't agree.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I haven't even spoken yet. Mr. McGuinty, I'm talking to you. You are extremely impolite.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You are very impolite. I haven't even spoken yet, but you say that I am filibustering.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Could I be told for approximately how long my colleague, Mr. Harvey, intends to speak?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Bigras, Mr. Harvey has as long as he has points to make, as long as he stays on clause 10 as amended.
Mr. Harvey, you may proceed.
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Harvey, I will move on if you can't deal with the topic, which is clause 10 as amended.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
As Mr. McGuinty pointed out, we have to talk to Canadians.
We have asked a lot of questions about costs. The answer we were given was that the cost is not important. We asked whether we should conduct a study. We were told that they didn't have to answer that. We asked whether, if we did conduct a study, if it should be done before or after the bill is passed. That's important. Should we do it before or after we pass Bill C-377? Well, we were told that it doesn't matter if it's done afterwards.
Mr. Chairman, when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, that is exactly the kind of decision-making on the fly that occurred. The consequence of that was that in 2006, we exceeded by some 33% the target levels Canada agreed to when it signed Kyoto. From 1997 to 2005, $1.4 billion was invested and, ultimately, we are nowhere near achieving the targets set initially. Why is that? When we signed the Kyoto Protocol, we didn't know the kind of challenges we would be facing and we didn't know what exactly the industry could do to comply with Kyoto.
Today we are talking about clause 10. I am going to provide an overview of what is missing from this private member's bill, proposed by a member of the NDP, and without which it is impossible for us to see how it could make sense. Let me explain.
It was noted that Canada needs energy to develop. That is the basis for every country on this earth. Economic, industrial and social development are all based on access to reliable and—especially—available energy sources. There are various technologies out there that provide that reliable and available energy. A number of times, Opposition members have referred to European successes, in France, England or Germany. We are told about these successes, but no mention is made of the technologies that these countries use. For example, France has several dozens reactors and sites where nuclear technology is used. But, when people talk about France, they often neglect to mention that. They say that it is able to produce energy without emitting CO2, but they don't say that there is a cost, which is the use of nuclear energy.
The environmental groups that we met with here said we should produce electricity the same way the Europeans do, but without relying on the nuclear option. That is what I would term a paradox, a little like the paradox of the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to manage the Canadian environment when, in actual fact, it says its only mandate is to defend Quebeckers and that the tar sands are, incredibly, the reason for their being here in Ottawa.
The joke, Bernard, is that…
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, in terms of being able to speak…
Mr. Chairman, it's very noisy in the room.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I can understand your difficulty. I would ask members to please listen.
Mr. Bigras.
